The lasting effects of instruction and supervision through

Ithaca CollegeDigital Commons @ IC

Ithaca College Theses

1991

The lasting effects of instruction and supervisionthrough Academic Learning Time-PhysicalEducation on the relationship between perceivedand observed students' behaviorsCarol Collinson HigginsIthaca College

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.ithaca.edu/ic_theses

Part of the Health and Physical Education Commons

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ IC. It has been accepted for inclusion in Ithaca College Theses by anauthorized administrator of Digital Commons @ IC.

Recommended CitationHiggins, Carol Collinson, "The lasting effects of instruction and supervision through Academic Learning Time-Physical Education onthe relationship between perceived and observed students' behaviors" (1991). Ithaca College Theses. Paper 126.

http://digitalcommons.ithaca.edu?utm_source=digitalcommons.ithaca.edu%2Fic_theses%2F126&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://digitalcommons.ithaca.edu/ic_theses?utm_source=digitalcommons.ithaca.edu%2Fic_theses%2F126&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://digitalcommons.ithaca.edu/ic_theses?utm_source=digitalcommons.ithaca.edu%2Fic_theses%2F126&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/1327?utm_source=digitalcommons.ithaca.edu%2Fic_theses%2F126&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://digitalcommons.ithaca.edu/ic_theses/126?utm_source=digitalcommons.ithaca.edu%2Fic_theses%2F126&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

THE LASTING E「 FECT3 0FINSRUCTION AND SWERVISION THROUGH

ACADEMIC LEARNING]コ ME―PHYSICAL EDUCA■ ON

ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWttEN PERCEⅣ ED

AND OBSERVED STUDENttSi BEHAVIORS

wCarol Collinson Higgins

An Abstract

of a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science in the Division

of Health, Physical Education,

and Recreation at

Ithaca College

September 1991

Thesis Advisor: Dr. Victor H. Mancini

ITHACA Cr」 LLEGE Li3PAPl

ABSTRACT

The lasting effects of instruction and supervision through Academic Learning Time-

Physical Education (ALT-PE) on the relationship between perceived and observed

behaviors of physical education student teachers and their students were

investigated. Twenty-six physical education student teachers, who had earlier

participated in a study done by O' Brien (1985) that assessed the effectiveness of two

different types of supervisory feedback--systematic and conventional feedback--on

pre-service teachers' behaviors, were videotaped three times while teaching their

regularly rheduled classes. The three tapes of each subject were coded using the

ALT-PE instrument. Prior to every videotaped class and immediately following

these classes, each subject filled out the Teacher's Questionnaire on the Students'

Activities (TQSA). This instrument was used to record the perceived students'

behavior. The subjects were divided into two groups--those who had received

conventional supervisory feedback as part of O'Brien's study (control group) and

those who had received systematic supervisory feedback (treatment group) as part of

O'Brien's study. All the videotapes served as data for the analysis. Only the post-

class estimates from the TQSA were used for analysis. In the treatment group,

significant canonical corelations were found for four variables in the context level

and four variables in the learner involvement level. In the control group, no

significant canonical correlations were found in the context level, and only one

variable showed significant canonical correlations in the learner involvement level.

No statistical test of the differences between correlations was applied because the

correlations were so obviously different that for practical purposes there was a clear

difference between the treatment and control group. This led to the rejection of the

first hypothesis that there would be no significant differences in the observed

teaching behaviors between the physical education student teachers who received

instruction in and supervision through ALT-PE and those who did not.

Multivariate analysis of variance was used to detenrrine significant differences in the

students' behaviors between the groups. Significant differences (p < .05.) led to the

rejection of the second hypothesis that there would be no significant difference

between the accmed ALT-PE of students engaged in classes taught by physical

education student teachers who received instruction and supervision through ALT-

PE and those who did not receive instruction and supervision through ALT-PE.

Univariate analysis of variance was performed on each of the ALT-PE variables to

identify those variables that accounted for a significant amount of the between-group

difference. The variables that accounted for the between-group difference in the

context level were transition/management and wann up, and in the learner

involvement level the variables that accounted for the between-group difference

were waiting, off-task, on-task, and motor appropriate (ALT-PE). From the findings

it was concluded that physical education student teachers instructed in and

supervised through ALT-PE were significantly more accurate in estimating observed

students'behaviors. It was also concluded that physical education student teachers

who had been instructed in and supervised through ALT-PE during O'Brien's study

had students who accrued more ALT-PE than those students whose teachers only

received conventional feedback. lastly, it was concluded that the effects of

instruction and supervision through ALT-PE were still maintained up to 1 year

following the cessation of training.

THE LASTING EFFECTS OF INSTRUCTION IN AND SUPERVISION THROUGH

ACADEMIC LEARNINGコ膨田―PHYSICAL EDUCA■ ON ON THE

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEIVED AND

OBSERVED STUDENrSi BEHAVIORS

A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of

the Division of Health, Physical

Education, and Recreation

Ithaca College

In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree

Master of Science

w

Carol Collinson Higgins

September 1991

Ithaca CollegeDivision of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation

Ithaca, New York

CER口[FICATE OF APPROVAL

MASlIR OF SCIENCE THESIS

This is to certify that the Master of Science Thesis of

Carol Collinson Higgins

submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirementsfor the degree of Master of Science in the Division ofHealth, Physical Education, and Recreation of IthacaCollege has been approved.

Thesis Advisor:

Committee Member:

Candidate:

Chairman, GraduatePrograms in Physical

Education:

Dean of GraduateStudies:

Date:

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The investigator would like to extend the sincerest appreciation to the

following people:

1. To Dr. Victor H. Mancini, my thesis advisor, whose knowledge and guidance

made this thesis possible.

2. To Dr. Deborah A. Wuest, my second reader, for her expertise,

encouragement, and patience.

3. To Dr. Patricia A. Frye for her statistical knowledge and help.

4. To the seniors enrolled in the student teaching practicum, who served as

subjects for this study.

5. To William Higgins, my husband, whose love, friendship, and support was

deeply appreciated.

6. To |oanne Smoker for her computer knowledge and help.

7. To Merry Swavely, who served as my typist.

8. To Elaine Reed who helped with the printing of this thesis.

|

DEDEATION

This thesis is dedicated to Mary and Tom Collirson′ my ParentS′ fOr loving′

caHng′ and giving me everything while never asking fOr anything in retum.

TABLE OF CON『 E耶

Lge

ACKNOWLEDGMENrS.………….… …Ⅲ……………………………………・……………………………・ii

DEDICAT10N .… …。………・……………… …………………・……。…………………………… ………五i

LIST OF TABLES.………………………………・…………………………………・…………………………・V五

Chapter イ

1.DぼRODUCrION.…………:・ ………………………・………Ⅲ…・……………………………・1

銑ope of the Problem.¨¨ ..¨ ¨ """¨ ¨¨¨¨・・ ¨¨¨¨ ""¨ "¨¨ 4

Statement of Problem.¨ ".."¨ ¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨……・・…………………・5

Major Hypotheses.… ……………………………………………………5

Assumptions of Study… ……… .¨““……・・・ "…………・…………… ¨…“・…6

Definition of Tenms..… ..… ..……・……・・………・……………………¨…・・………・・ "・・・…6

Delimitations of Study¨ "… ………… ………… …………………………………¨… 7

Lilnitations of Study¨¨¨ .・・““。““・ ¨・“ ・・・ ¨¨ ¨ 。“ ・・ 8

2.REVIEW OF RELATED L「 ERATURE.……………………………………………¨9

The Use of Feedback to Modiヶ Teacher Beha宙 or.………………。9

ALT― PE.………………………………………………………………………………………13

Teacher Awareness in the Classroom。 ………………………………………19

Sunlmary。 ¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨ "¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨・23

3。 METHODS AND PR∝ EttES.…………………………………………………24

Selection ofSubjec“ .………………………………………………… 24

Testing lnstruments.… … ……………………………………………24

lV

Chapter Page

Intraobserver Agreement............. ................ 25

Treatment of Subjects .................26

Procedures ..................2G

Methods of Data Collection. ......22

Scoring of Data .-........27

Treatment of Data...... ..................27

Summary.. .................. 28

ANALYSE OF DATA. .....30

IOA............ ................... 30

Relationship Between Perceived and Observed

Students' Behaviors. .............. 30

Differences in Students' Behavior.............. ...................37

Summary.. ..................43

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS. .............. 45

Relationship Between Perceived and Observed

Teaching Behaviors ...............46

Systematic Supervisory Feedback Studies...... ..............49

ALT-PE Studies...... ....................... 50

Follow-up Studies .......................52

Summary.. ..................54

4.

5.

Fage

6. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

FURTHER STUDY..... .................... 56

Summary.. .................. 56

Conclusions.............. .................... 59

Recommendations for Further Study........ ................... 59

APPENDICES

A. Informed Consent Form: Student Teacher Copy............................... 61

B. Informed Consent Form: Student Copy......... ................... G4

C. Informed Consent Form: Parent or Guardian Copy..........................56

D. Teacher's Questionnaire on the Students' Activities............... -.........69

vl

LIST OF TABLES

Table hge

1. Analysis of Canonical Correlations on the Relationship

Between Perceived and Observed Shrdents' Behaviors

at the Context Leve1......... ............... 33

2. Analysis of Canonical Correlatiotui on the Relatioruhip

Between Percieved and Observed Students' Behaviors

at the Learner Involvement Level...... ...........35

3. Correlation Coefficients for Perceived Versus Observed

Scores at the Context Leve1......... .....................38

4. Correlation Coefficients for Perceived Versus Observed

Scores at the Learner lnvolvement Level.... ...................39

5. Cell Means for the ALT-PE Variables .................41

6. Discriminant Function Analysis ...... U7. Univariate Analysis of Variance Contrasting Treatnrent

and Control Groups.... .................... 45

Vll

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Our educational institutions are often the target of public criticism. Many

people, including educators, recognize the need for a scientific approach to observe

and evaluate the educational process and to increase teacher effectiveness. Through

the years, teachers have been observed in the classroom and provided with feedback

concerning their teaching behavior. However, this conventional method was

subjective and unreliable and often not a valid measure of teaching behaviors. In

order to correct this situation, researchers developed systematic observation. This

method allows a trained person, using a systematic observation instrument and

following stated guidelines and procedures, to observe, record, and analyze teachers'

and students'behaviors with the assurance that the data collected are reliable and

valid. Many systematic observation instruments are now being used in physical

education to analyze activity in our gymnasiums and playfields.

Interaction analysis is one type of systematic observation technique. Many

researchers have used interaction analysis to gather objective information

about teachers' and students'behaviors: this information is then used to provide

teachers with systematic supervisory feedback. Getty (7977), Hendrickson (7975),

Rochester (1976), and Vogel (1970 all used interaction analysis to provide teachers

with supervisory feedback. These researchers found the use of interaction analysis

facilitated changes in teachers' behavior. Getty found the effects of interaction

analysis were still present 1 month after the completion of the training period.

Mancini, Morris, and Getty (1.979) also found this to be the case in relation to teacher

effectiveness. Mancini, Frye, and Quinn (1982) were the first to investigate the

lasting effects of instmction and supervision in interaction analysis on teaching

behavior, effectiveness, and attitudes of inservice physical educators up to 4 years

after undergraduate teacher training. These researchers determined systematic

supervisory feedback had lasting effects not only on teaching behaviors but also on

attitudes and teaching effectiveness.

Another type of systematic observation is interval recording. Interval

recording permits the observer to record the occurrence or nonoccurrence of

specified behaviors within a predetermined time interval. One instrument that

utilizes this method and that has been used frequently in the area of physical

education is the Academic Learning Time.Physical Education (ALT-PE) instrument.

The ALT-PE instrument is based on research generated from the Beginning Teacher

Evaluation Studies GTES). BTES' researchers (Fisher et al., 1978) demonstrated that

it was possible to use student time-on-task for product measures of student

achievemenU this time measure was named Academic Learning Time (ALT). The

researchers also developed a coding instrument to facilitate the gathering of data

about student ALT. To utilize this concept and instrument within the physical

education and sport environment, Siedentop, Birdwell and Metzler (1979) modified

the ALT instrument to permit the coding of physical activity. The amount of ALT-

PE accrued is used as a direct measure of student achievement, which the teacher's

behavior influences indirectly (Siedentop et al., 197r'.

Many intervention and feedback studies have used the ALT-PE instrument to

gather information to provide teachers with feedback. Birdwell (1980), Hart (1983),

Metzler (1980b), Paese 0982), and Whaley (1980) investigated the value of different

interventions and forms of feedback on teaching behavior. These studies revealed

3

that verbal and written feedback was shown to be a valuable supervisory tool in

helping teachers improve instructional performance and increase their students'

achievement as measured by accrued ALT-PE. Similarly, Grecic, Mancini, and

Wuest 0984), who used the same population as Mancini et aI. (7982), found the

effects of instruction and supervision in interaction analysis on student ALT-PE

were maintained 1 to 4 years after cessation of the training period.

Several researchers have investigated the effects of supervisory feedback on

teachers' awareness of their behaviors. Withall (1972) found that 85Vo of the teachers

from nursery through graduate school had little awareness of their behaviors or

what effect it had on their students. Batchelder (1975) found that physical education

teachers were inaccurate in 94Vo of their estimates of their process objectives,

followed by English teachers with 84Vo and math teachers with77Vo. Would

supervisory feedback help teachers become more aware of their behaviors? Beam

(1972) found that teachers who were trained in the interpretation of classroom

interaction analysis tended to reduce the difference between their displayed and ideal

classroom behaviors, as well as their displayed and perceived classroom behaviors.

However, the teachers who received training in interaction analysis but received no

feedback tended to increase the differences in displayed and perceived classroom

behaviors and their displayed and ideal classroom behaviors. Van der Mars,

Mancini, and Frye (1981) studied the effects of instruction and supervision through

systematic supervisory feedback on the relationship between the perceived and

observed teaching behaviors of 36 pre.service physical educators. They reported that

the subjects who received the systematic supervisory training were more indirect in

their teaching and were more accurate in estimating their behaviors compared to

4

those subjects who received conventional supervisory feedback.

O'Brien (1985) further investigated the effects of instruction and supervision

through ALT-PE by studying the relationship between the perceived teaching

behaviors and the observed teaching behaviors of 30 preservice physical educators

involved in micro-peer teaching. It was concluded that pre-service physical

educators instructed in and supervised through ALT-PE were significantly more

accurate in estimating observed students'behaviors as compared to those pre'service

teachers who received conventional supervisory feedback. It was also found that

pre-service physical educators instructed in and supervised through ALT-PE had

students who accrued more ALT-PE than those students in the class whose teachers

only received conventional feedback.

This investigation was undertaken as a follow-up to O'Brien's 1985 study. This

investigation sought to determine the lasting effects of instruction and supervision

through ALT-PE on physical education student teachers' awareness of their

behaviors.

Scope of the Problem

This investigation was conducted to determine the lasting effects of instruction

and supervision through ALT-PE on the relationship between perceived and

observed behaviors of students in classes taught by physical education student

teachers. The subjects were 26 physical education student teachers enrolled at Ithaca

College, Ithaca, New York These subjects had participated in a previous study by

O'Brien (1985) that assessed the effectiveness of two different types of supervisory

feedback-systematic and conventional feedback--on pre-service teachers'behaviors.

O'Brien's study revealed that those pre.service teachers who had received systematic

suPervisory feedback provided their students with more academic learning time or

time-on-task and were more aware of their behaviors than those teachers who only

received conventional supervisory feedback.

This follow-up investigation was undertaken to detennine whether the effects

of supervisory feedback were long lasting. Each subject was videotaped teaching

three 40-min physical education classes. The tapes were coded using the revised

ALT-PE instrument (Siedentop, Tousignant, & Parker, 7982). The ALT-PE data

provided information about the students' observed behaviors. Each subject fitled

out the Teacher's Questionnaire on the Students' Activities (TQSA)(O'Brien, 1985)

prior to and again immediately following each class. The TQSA data provided

information about the students' perceived behaviors.

Statement of Problem

This investigation was conducted to study the lasting effects of instmction and

supervision through ALT-PE on the relationship between the perceived and the

observed behaviors of physical education student teachers and their students.

This study was also conducted to assess if there u/ere any significant difference

in the accmed ALT-PE of students engaged in classes taught by physical education

student teachers who received instruction and supervision through ALT-PE and

those who did not receive supervisory feedback using ALT-PE.

Major Hypotheses

1. There will be no significant differences between observed teaching behaviors

of those physical education student teachers who received instruction and

supervision through ALT-PE and those who did not receive instruction and

supervision through ALT-PE in the correlations between the perceived and the

obseⅣed teaching behaviors.

2. There will be no significant difference between the accrued ALT― PE of

sttdents engaged in classes taught by physical education student teachers whO

received irlstruction and supervision through ALT― PE and those who did not

r∝eive insけ uction and supervision through ALT― PE.

Assumptions of Studv

The following assumptios were nlade relative to this study:

1.The subieCtS Selected were rePreSentative of the population Of physical

education student teachers at lthaca Conege.

2. The coding of three teaching sessions using the ALT― PE instrulnent was

adequate to yield valid data on the observed teaching beha宙 or for each subiect・

3. The revised TQSA provided valid data on the perceived behavior of the

SubieCtS・

Definition of TerrFS

The following tenms were operationally defined for the purpose of this study:

1.Academic Leaming Time(ALT)is the amOunt oftime a student sPendS

engaged in a relevant leaming task with a high success rate(Marliave′ FisheL&

Dishaw′ 1972)。

2. Academic Learning Time― Phvsical Education(ALT― PE)is the amount of

acadenuc leaming time accrued by a student while in a physical education dass

(MetzleL 1980b).

3.Pre― service teachers are undergraduate students in physical education who

have not yet participated fo...lally in student teaching(van der Mar助 1979).

4。 Student teachers are undergraduate students in PhySiCal educadon who are

7

PreSently teaching their PhySiCal education Practicurn in a public sch001 in order to

win the n∝ essary cu...culum requirements to receive their teaching certificate.

5.Conventional… IS璽駆 feedback is verbalinput based on asP∝ tS Of Class

control′ organization′ and management chSS Strudコ『

e,and methodology(Mancini′

Wuesし &van der Mars′ 1984).

6。 Svstematic supervlsorv feedback is verbalinPut baSed On data obtained

through the use of a systematic obseⅣ ation inst― ent and is directed at teaching

methodology and spedfic teacher and student behaviors oИ ancmi et al.′ 1984).

7.Micro― peer teachingお a method ofi“ mctiOn in teacher education that

enables pre― sewice teachers to practice teaching skins by teaching their classmates

(van der Mars′ 1979)。

8.Teachers Ouestionnaire on Sndents'Acti宙 ties(TOSA)is a 15-item

questionnaire deHved from the ALT― PE categories(0:Brien′ 1985).

9. is the esirrnted teaching beha宙 or of the

teacher in the physical education class as measured by the T∝ A.

10.Observed teaching beha宙 or b the actual teaching beha宙or of the teacher in

the physical education class as measured by the ALT¨ PE instrtment.

Delimitatio…

The following were the delinlitatiolls of thiS shldy:

1.The subieCtS Were physical educadon student teachers at lthaca C011ege′

Ithaca′ New York.

2. ALT― PE was the only instn■ Inent employed to record achal student

behavlor.

3.The TQSA was the only insmment used in this study to record the teaching

8

behaviors as perceived by the subjects.

4. All subjects taught their physical education cl,asses according to their regular

student teaching schedule.

Limitations of Study

The following were the limitations of this study:

1. The findings related to the observed student behavior may only be valid for

comparison when the ALT-PE instrument is wed for coding.

2. The findings related to the perceived teaching behaviors may only be valid

for comparison when the TQSA is used for data collection.

3. The findings of this study may only be true for physical education student

teachers similar to the subjects in this investigation.

|

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LTTERATURE

The review of related literature will focus on the following areas: (a) the use of

feedback to modify teacher behavior, (b) studies involving ALT-PE, (c) teacher

awareness in the classroom, and (d) summary.

The Use of Feedback to Modify Teacher Behavior

For years teachers were provided with information by their supervisors on

their teaching performance in an attempt to help them modify and change their

behaviors. However, this conventional verbal feedback typically focused only on

asPects of classroom management, control and methodology and was subjective in

nature. Although this feedback was helpful, it did not provide objective descriptions

of the classroom events. Recently the use of systematic observation systems have

allowed trained observers to record classroom events as they occurred. These

instruments provided objective data on classroom teachers'and students'behaviors.

The data are then used to provide teachers with supervisory feedback this process is

referred to as systematic supervisory feedback.

Interaction analysis is one technique that has been used to provide teachers

with systematic supervisory feedback lnteraction analysis instruments fobus on

teachers' and students' interactions and give'an objective event-by-event description

of what happens in the class. This enables the supervisor and the teacher to select

and modify the teaching behaviors that require attention.

Several researchers have used the Flanders' Interaction Analysis System (FIAS)

(Flanders, 1960) and its modifications to study the effects of instruction and/or

supervision in FIAS on teachers' behaviors. Love and Barry 0971,) used the Timer-

10

Love Adaptation of FI.AS to investigate the difference between those student teachers

ffained using the instrument and those not trained. Results showed that the student

teachers who received training developed a sense of cooperation with each other

during the training period, were able to analyze their own teaching, and

demonstrated both the desire and ability to change their own teaching behavior.

Bondi (1970 used FIAS to provide student teachers in the treatment group with

systematic feedback derived from FIAS matrices and information sheets, while the

control group received conventional feedback. Bondi found that the student

teachers who received the systematic supervisory feedback were more indirect in

their teaching, gave more praise, asked more questions, and accepted and clarified

students'ideas more than those student teachers who did not receive training.

The Cheffers' Adaptation of FIAS (CAFIAS) (Cheffers, 1983) was developed for

use in physical activity settings. Many studies have used this instrument to provide

teachers with supervisory feedback and also as a method to investigate its effects on

teachers' behavior. Keilty (197il sought to determine the effects of 15 hours of

instruction and supervision in CAFIAS on pre-service physical educators teaching

behaviors in a micro-peer setting. The Teacher Performance Criteria Questionnaire

(TPCQ) was used to assess teacher effectiveness. Keilty reported that those teachers

who received CAFIAS training were more indirect in their teaching style compared

to those teachers who did not receive training. However, no significant changes

were found in teacher effectiveness.

Hendrickson (1975) and Rochester (7975) used CAFIAS as the training

instrument for pre-service physical education teachers during micro-peer teaching

lessons. In both studies, the control groups viewed their videotapes and received

11

conventional supervisory feedbaclg while the teachers in the treatment group

viewed their videotapes and received conventional supervisory feedback plus

instruction and feedback from CAIrL{S. Hendrickson found that the pre.service

teachers trained in CAFIAS asked more questions, accepted and praised students'

ideas more, were more student-oriented, were more indirect in their teaching, and

used more small group and individual instruction than those pre.service teachers

who were not trained. In Rochester's study, the treatment group also received

additional supervision and experience in the coding of CAFIAS, The treatment

SrouP had less teacher talk, more verbal questioning by the teacher, and more

student initiated behavior occuring in their classes as compared to the control

grouP.

The effect of systematic supervisory feedback on student teachers' behavior was

investigated by Vogel(o976) and by Getty 09m. The treatment group in Vogel's

study received 10 hours of instruction and coding using CAIIL{S along with

comPuter feedback, while the control Broup only received conventional supervisory

feedback. Getty (1977) decided to increase the training in CAFIAS for the treatment

group from 10 to 15 hours, while the control group received 15 hours of

conventional supervisory feedback. In both studies, the subjects trained in CAFLAS

were more indirect in their teaching style, used more praise, permitted more verbal

and nonverbal student-initiated behaviors, and made better use of questions. In

Getty's study, the differences that were observed in the students'behavior following

' training were still present 1 month after training had ended. As a follow-up study to

Getty (1977), Mancini et al. (1979) used the TItQ on the same set of subjects in order

to determine the lasting effects of instruction and supervision in CAFIAS on teacher

effectiveness. They found that the treatment group scored higher on the TPCQ and

were more effective than the control group. They also concluded that teacher

effectiveness could be maintained 1 month after the training had ended.

Inturrisi (197, studied the effects of feedback and instruction in interaction

analysis on the teaching behaviors and attitudes of physical education student

teachers. Significant differences in teacher use of questioning, pupil inititation, and

acceptance and praise were observed, in favor of the teachers in the treatment group.

The Teacher Situation Reaction Test (TSRT) was used to assess teachers'attitudes.

The results indicated that the student teachers exposed to CAFIAS showed more

positive teaching attitudes than the control group.

Mancini et al. (1982) investigated the effects of supervisory feedback using

CAFIAS up to 4 years post-haining on 26 in-service teachers' behaviors, attitudes,

and effectiveness. The results revealed that the teachers trained in CAFIAS as

undergraduates used more questions, were more indirect in their teaching and

accepted and praised students more than those who received conventional

supervisory feedback. The teachers who had been trained in interaction analysis

were more effective and had a more positive attitude. The study showed that the

effects of interaction analysis training could be maintained 1 to 4 years after the

training period had ended.

Grecic et al. (1984) used the same set of subjects as Mancini et al. (1982) to

investigate the lasting effects of training in interaction analysis on the students'

ALT-PE during classes taught by in-service physical educators. The subjects trained

in interaction analysis as undergraduates were more efficient teachers and had

greater student involvement in their classes. The students in their classes had twice

|

13

as much ALT-PE as the control group students (40.1Vo compared to 2'l..3Vo).

Interaction analysis training was shown to be effective in providing teachers

with feedback to change their behaviors. Another tool, the ALT-PE instrument, can

also be used as an assessment instrument as well as to provide teachers with

systematic supervisory feedback.

ALT-PE

ALT-PE is the amount of ALT accrued by a student involved in a physical

education class. Carroll (1953) was the first to suggest that a relatioruhip existed

between time and student learning. He stated that the degree to which a student was

involved in learning, as measured by time, was one of the most influential factors in

creating favorable learning environment. The BTES (Fisher et al., 1978) were the

first major research effort to identify specific teaching skills that were related to

student learning. These studies were conducted by the Far West Laboratory for

Educational Research and Development in 1,972.

The BTES findings supported the use of time as a measure of student learning.

This concept of time-on-task became known as ALT and was defined as the amount

of time a student spends engaged in a relevant learning task with a high success rate

(Marliave, 1970. Berliner (7979) supported the use of time-on-task for a product

measure of actual achievement. Initially, ALT was used to monitor both teacher and

student behavior. Higher levels of ALT were found to be associated with teacher

effectiveness and student achievemen$ students who accrued high levels of ALT

learned more than low level accruers.

The ALT model consists of four interrelated components achievement:

allocated time (the time provided for learning a task), engaged time (the percentage

74

of allocated time students spent actively responding), task relevanry (the degree to

which an activity can be viewed as contributing to an academic goal), and success rate

(the amount of success experienced by the student for the engaged task) (Marliave,

1977). The BTES research that indicatd that ALT was significantly related to

students'achievement received strong support from other researchers (Berliner,

1978; Marhave, 7979 ; Mtz 1980).

The BTES researchers developed an ALT observation instrument to facilitate

the monitoring of ALT in the classroom. This was then modified by Siedentop et al.

(7979) so it could be used as an observation instrument in physical activity settings.

In this modification, ALT was named ALT-PE and was defined as the amount of

time a student spends engaged in a relevant task at an easy level of difficulty

(Siedentop et al., 797il. The category ALT-PE M) reflected the amount of time a

student was successfullly engaged in a relevant motor task.

The purpose of the ALT-PE instrument was to facilitate observation of

participation levels of physical education students in respect to the context of the

class and the difficulty of the activity. This initial system consisted four major

decisions: setting (instructional style), content (general or physical education-

related), learner moves (engaged or non-engaged), and level of difficulty (easy or not

easy). A 12-s interval recording format was used: the coder observed for 5 s, then

recorded for 5 s.

In order to make the original ALT-PE instrument easier to use, Siedentop et al.

revised the initial instrument in 1982. The revised ALT-PE instrument consists of

only two major decision levels--context level and learner involvement--compared

to the four levels in version I. In version II, there is no setting category to reflect the

15

sPectrum of teaching styles, but the inclusion of general content and subject matter

motor makes possible a clearer picture of what the students are doing in dass.

Version [I includes a number of other changes; the warm-up category was added;

non-academic instruction and other motor responses were deleted, and the learner

'moves grouping (engaged and not engaged) became motor engaged and not motor

engaged, respectively.

Metzler (1980b) used the ALT-PE instrument to identify the amount of ALT-PE

accmed in a variety of physical education settings. The subjects were 21 physical

educators teaching at the elementary, junior high, and high school levels. A total of

32 classes were observed encompassing 13 different activities, with two or three

target students observed in each class. The results showed that students were

involved in PE-Content 73.6Vo of the class time, ALT-PE occurred 26.8Vo of all class

intervals, and ALT-PE(M) occurrdT.sEo of all intervals. Both ALT-PE(M) and ALT-

PE were the highest at the elementary level, followed by the iunior high and the

high school level, respectively.

The same data were also used by Metzler (1980a) to examine the levels of ALT-

PE accrued by students in each of the 13 physical education activities. The highest

mean percentages of ALT-PE were found in volleyball (59.4V.) and soccer (4A3Vo); the

lowest were found in football (14.7Vd and gymnastics (12.3yd. The results revealed

that students engaged in team activities accmed more ALT-PE than did students in

individual activities. In addition, Metzler found that the ALT-PE did not increase as

. the teaching unit progressed.

Metzler (1981) examined the ALT-PE of college students. Descriptive statistics

showed that 45Vo of all coded intervals were ALT-PE, nearly twice the amount of

16

ALT-PE exhibited in the 1st-12th grades study. This revealed a substantially higher

level of involvement on the part of the college students.

Godbout, Brunelle, and Tousignant (1983) studied the amount of ALT-PE

experienced by students in 30 elementary and 31 secondary physical education

classes. Content-PE time accounted for 55.7Vo of the class time at the elementary

level and 87.7Vo at the secondary level. ALT-PE constituted 36.4Vo of the class time in

the secondary classes and 37.3Vo of the class time in the elementary classes.

The differences in learning opportunities in traditional elementary physical

education classes were investigated by Placek, Silverman, Shute, Dodds, and Rife

(1982). One male physical educator and 53 elementary school first, third, and fifth

grade pupils were used as subjects. ALT-PE percentages were derived for three

classifications: high-, medium-, and low-skilled students; girls and hyr; and for

different instructional units. The results revealed no significant difference in the

ALT-PE accrued by girls and boys. However, high-skilled students accrued 757r, ALT-

PE(M), the medium-skilled students accrued 9Vo, and the low-skilled students

accnred 8vo. A similar study was conducted by Shute, Dodds, Placek, Rife, and

Silverman (1982) to examine the differences in learning opportunities in elementary

movement classes. This study investigated differences in ALT-PE between boys and

girls, special and non-special need groups, and various skill levels. The results

revealed that equal opportunities existed for all groups within the class.

Another study that compared the ALT-PE of regular and mainstreamed

handicapped students was undertaken by Aufderheide, McKenzie, and Knowles

(1982). Teachers were identified as users or nonusers of individualized instruction.

The data showed that users of individualized instruction provided a significantly

17

gleater amount of ALT-PE for theit students whether they were mahstreamed or

nonmairutreamed. Sttrdents engagd in dasses taught by teadrers using

individuatized instruction were engated 57,2% of the class time compared with

8.94% for students of nonus€rs of individualized instnrction.

McKenzie, Clarh and McKenzie (1982) studied the ALT-PE of students when

different instnrctlonal strategies were used by their teacher. Six irutnrctional

strategies during beginning fencing classes, all taught by the same o<perienced

teacher were assesed. ALT-PEM) accrtred during active learning periods ranged

from26.9% for bouting to 97.957o for machinepaced drllling. Feedback ranged from

78.7% for teadter-paced drilling compared with 54.8% for strdent-paced drilling.

McKenzie et aL concluded that teachlng strategie that maintatn high levels of ALT-

PE and allow more feedback were valuable.

Experimental Teaddng Units (ETU), as a method of meanrring ALT-PE, wene

utilized by Young (1981) and Keller (1982). An ETU ls a novel ekill designed to

reduce the influence of prior learning. Both researchers chose a combined

golflhockey novel skill that involved hitting a ball into a hoop for the ETU. In

Young's shrdy, a pretest was administered, followed by a 2Gmin lesson in whictr the

content was regulated but not the irutmctional style. Foltowing the lessorU a poet-

test was Fvm. Young r€portd that higher post-test scores correlated wtth increased

ALT-PE, indicating student mastery of the ETU ski[. Keller (1982) studied the effects

of two instructional methods, the lecture/demonstration method and the reverae

chaining method, on student achievement scores and acrrtred ALT-PE(M). The

resulB showed no significant differences in the ALT-PE actmed by students taught by

either the lecture/demorutration or revetse chaining instnrctional m*hod.

18

Many researchers have investigated the value of different forms of feedback

and intervention in an effort to increase teacher effectiveness. One of the initial

studies that examined the effects of feedback on the ALT-PE of students was

conducted by Whaley (1980). Twelve students from four schools were observed in

. their daily physical education class for 7 weeks. Both teachers and students were

made aware that more engaged time and increased motor response opportunities

were more desirable; however, the ways of achieving these goals were not discrrssed.

Throughout the study graphic feedback was given to both teachers and students. The

findings indicated that feedback and daily monitoring were effective in some schools

but not others in increasing students' ALT-PE.

A similar study by Birdwell (1980) examined the effects of instruction and daily

feedback given to three in-service teachers on the ALT-PE of their students. Not

only were the teachers made aware that changes in management and feedback were

desirable, but they also received instruction on how to accomplish these objectives.

Results showed ALT-PE increased from34.7Vo to 57.3Vo and ALT-pE(M) from 7Z.SVo

to 37.7Vo.

Metzler (1981) assessed the value of intervention strategies to increase ALT-PE.

The subjects were three students and a student teacher from each of two archery

classes. The baseline measurements showed low percentages of ALT-PE(M), motor

responding, and motor engagement. After the intervention, an increase in motor

engagement and ALT-PE(M) was observed, along with a decrease in the student

waiting time.

Hart (1983) examined the effects of modification of teacher behavior on the

ALT-PE of selected students in physical education. ,Four elementary physical

19

education teachers were trained as observers to collect data with the ALT-PE

instrument. The teachers then measured their students' ALT-PE. After this, the

teachers then attended short instructional dinics, were given systematic feedback,

and were given a preset criterion level for certain behaviors to meet. The

relationship between the intervention and the behaviors at each school were

examined. The data revealed that the intervention resulted in reducing student wait

time and transition time and increasing the ALT-PE in three out of the four schools.

Paese 0982) assessed the effects of a university supervisor's feedback on the

ALT-PE(M) of two student teachers'volleyball classes. The ALT-PE instrument was

used to collect data. Teachers were given verbal and written feedback and strategies

on how to reduce management time after each of their observed cl,asses. The ALT-PE

instrument was found to be a valuable supervisory tool in helping student teachers

improve instructional performance and increase their students' achievement.

Teacher Awareness in the Classroom

Many educators have inaccurate perceptions of what is occurring in their

classrooms. Bondi (1.970 stated how aware the teachers are of their own behaviors

and that of their students has been assumed to be related to teacher effectiveness.

Teachers who are aware of their behaviors are able to correct negative behaviors or

maintain positive behaviors that enhance the learning process for their students.

Researchers have developed many systematic observation instruments to

provide teachers with objective feedback concerning the frequency and type of

interactions with their students. "An assumption underlying this use of observation

techniques is that teachers are unaware of certain aspects of their behavior in the

classroom" (Martin & Keller, 7975, p.47).

20

In a study by Withall (7972), it was revealed that 857o of the teachers from

nursery through graduate school had little alvareness of their behavior or what affect

it had on their students. In an attempt to determine the reasons why teachers

apparently lack awareness, Good and Brophy (197$ identified three factors:

1. The interaction in the classroom takes place at a rapid pace.

2. Teachers have not been trained to monitor and study their own behavior.

3. Teachers rarely receive systematic feedback from supervisors.

Batchelder (1'970 developed the Teachers' Questionnaire on Objectives (TQO)

from the CAFIAS categories to measure teachers'perceptions of their behaviors.

Twenty-five elementary teachers who taught English, math, and physical education

were observed. Before each class, each teacher filled out the TQO for three areas:

PuPil interaction, class structure, and variety of teaching agency. The classroom

interactions were coded by two reliable observers using CAFIAS. After comparing

the T@ to the observed teachers'classroom behaviors as recorded by CAFIAS, she

found only one of the 17 objectives that were observed to be significantly correlated

(pupil initiation, teacher suggested ratio). Results showed physical education

teachers were inaccurate in 94Vo of the estimates of their process objectives; whereas,

English teachers were inaccurate in 84Vo and math teachers in79Vo.

The relationship between perceived teaching behavior and observed teaching

behavior of 16 rhool health educators was investigated by Scriber 09n). In this

study, CAFIAS and a modified version of the TQO were used to collect data. The

teachers filled out the TQO before and after each class. The results revealed that only

four out of the 20 variables examined were significantly related. He concluded that

school health educators' perceptions of the class behaviors were different than the

actual observed behaviors.

Martin and Keller (1970 studied 30 classrooms, with each classroom being

observed for 1 day, to monitor dyadic interactions between the teachers and the

students. The teachers were told the amount of contacts they had with individual

students and were asked to estimate the percentages that were recorded in each of the

five categories: response opportunities, recitation and reading, procedural contact,

work contacts, and behavior contacts. Results showed that teachers were unable to

accurately estimate the number of contacts in each category.

Beam (1972) investigated 33 science teachers' displayed, perceived, and ideal

teaching behaviors to determine the effects of training in interaction analysis. The

subjects were divided into three groups who received training in interaction analysis

in conjunction with videotape feedback, training in the interpretation of interaction

analysis, and no training, respectively. Each teacher filled out a questionnaire

concerning his/her intended teaching behaviors (ideal behaviors) and those

behaviors actually used (perceived behaviors). FIAS was used to assess the displayed

behaviors. The data revealed that the teachers who received videotape feedback plus

interaction analysis tended to reduce the difference between their disptayed and ideal

behaviors and between their displayed and perceived behaviors. Teachers that only

received the training in the interpretation of interaction analysis tended to increase

the differences in both cases. The control group subjects showed no changes.

Van der Mars et al. (1981) examined the effects of instruction in and

supervision through interaction analysis on the relationship between perceived and

observed teaching behaviors of 36 pre.service physical educators who were randomly

assigned to a control or a treatment group. All subjects filled out the TQO prior to

22

and immediately following teaching. The control group received conventional

feedback. The treatment group received conventional feedback, feedback through

CAFIAS, and were shown a comparison of their questionnaire estimates to their

observed scores from CAIrL{S. Data revealed that the teachers who received the

systematic supervisory feedback were more indirect in their teaching style and were

better able to make accurate estimates of their class behaviors.

O'Brien (1985) investigated the effects of instruction in and supervision

through ALT-PE on the relationship between the perceived teaching behaviors and

the observed teaching behaviors of 30 pre'service physical educators. Each subject

was videotaped on three separate occasions while teaching in a micro-peer setting.

The three tapes of each subject were coded using the ALT-PE instrument. Prior to

every videotaped class and immediately following these classes, each subject fitled

out the Teacher's Questionnaire on the Students' Activities (TQSA). Based on the

ALT-PE categories, the TQSA was used to record the perceived students'behavior.

Subjects in both the treatment and control group received conventional feedback

while viewing their tapes. ln addition, the subjects in the treatment group received

instruction and supervision through ALT-PE while viewing their tapes. The

subjects in the treatment group were also shown a comparison of their post-dass

estimates from the TQSA and the observed scores from the ALT-PE instrument.

O'Brien concluded that pre'service physical educators instructed in and supervised

through ALT-PE were significantly more accurate in estimating observed students'

behaviors. It was also shown that pre.service physical educators instructed in and

supervised through ALT-PE had students who accrued more ALT-PE than those

students in the classes whose teachers only received conventional feedback.

23

Summary

Past studies by Getty 09m, Grecic et al. (1984), and Mancini et al. (1982) revealed

that training in interaction analysis had an immediate effect on the teachers'

behaviors and that the effect was still maintained up to 4 years following the

cessation of the training. Interaction analysis has been demonstrated to be a valuable

tool in the teacher training program and in modifying teachers'behaviors.

Researchers have recognized that engagement in relevant activities or

repetition of a skill facilitate student learning. The BTES used time-on-task,

specifically ALT, for a product measure of actual achievement (Berliner, 7979). Ttis

concePt was modified by Siedentop et al. (7979) for use in the physical education

setting and became known as ALT-PE. An observation instrument was then

developed to facilitate the gathering of ALT-PE data.

Several studies have used the ALT-PE instrument in physical education

settings to measure the amount of ALT-PE accrued by students. The effects of

various interventions and supervisory feedback on ALT-PE accrual have been

investigated by Birdwetl (1980), Hart (1983), Metzler (1981a), Paese (7982), and Whaley

(1980). Their research revealed intervention and supervisory feedback given to

teachers can increase their students' ALT-PE.

Teachers' perceptions of the classroom events and the actual classroom

behaviors are not always the same (Batchelder,1975; Good & Brophy, 1973; Martin &

Keller, 7975; Withall, 1,972). Training in systematic observation and systematic

supervisory feedback were found to decrease the difference between perceived

classroom behaviors and observed classroom behaviors by Beam (1972), O'Brien

(1985), and van der Mars et al. (1981).

Chapter 3

METHODS AND PR∝ EDURES

This chapter explains the lnethods and PrOCedllres used in this study. Included

are sdecuon Of subjects′ testing instruments′ treatment of subieCtS′ pr∝edures′

methods of data collection′ sconng of data′ treaunent Of data′ and sulnlrary。

Selection of Subiects

The subi∝ts Were 26 physical educauon sndent teachers enrolled in either the

1985 fa1l or 1986 sPHng Student teaching practicurn at lthaca College′ Ithaca′ New

York.These subjects had earlier participated in a study by OIBrien(1985)that

investigated the effectiveness of two different types of supervisory feedback― ―

conventional and systerrntic feedback――on pre‐service teachers:behaviors during

micro`peer teaching.All subiects Signed an info...led corlsent foニュニI(Appendices A―

(E) .

Testi雖 Instnlments

The testing instnlment used to code the amount of time students spent

working directly on】meaningful leaming tasks was the revised ALT― PE observation

irstrument(SiedentOP et al.′ 1982). Version Ⅱ′the revised version′ consists of two

major decision levels: context level and leamer involvelnent level.There are three

major subd市isiolls within the context level(general content′ subject matter

knowledge′ and subiect matter motor)and 13 further categoHes that desc五 be the

namre Of the class environment. The leamer involvement level consists of two

major subdivisions(not rnOtor engaged and lnotor engaged)and eight n」此her

categories that describe individual student behavlor. In this investigation the

recording fo...lat uSed was 6-s observe′ 6-s record.Three target students were

24

alternately observed in each chss.

The second instrument used was the Teachers Questiomaire on the Studentsi

Activities(TQSA). 0!Brien(1985)developed the questionnaire in order to compare

the teachersi perceptions of class events to the observed studentsi beha宙 ors′ as

measured by ALT― PE.The quesuorlnaire was modeled after Batchdder's(1976)TQO.

0:Brien used the ALT― PE′ version Ⅱ′categories as a basis to develop the insmmenrs

questions.

Based upon the recomlnendation of the thesis comlnittee and(Э tB五en′ the

instrument was modified for this study. Induded in the directioIIs was an

eXPlanation that percentages did not have to be an increment of 5′ but whatever

percentage that was used duHng class. The researcher also included an additional

question(1.b。)to dete...line what percentage of time the students were successful

when actively involved.The TQSA is presented in APpendiX D.

Intraobserve

htraobserver agreement(IOA)was assessed using the scored― inteⅣal agreement

method′ as recommended by Hawkis and Dotson(1973).Dr Victor mncini′ an

expert in descHptive― analytic techniques′ coded four randomly selected videotapes

during two independent coding sessios. IOA was calculated on an interval― by―

interval basis and was computed by dividing the number of intewals on which there

was agreement by the number of agreernents Plus diSagreements and then

multiplying the results by 100(Herson&Barlow′ 1976).The fo...lula is given below:

Areements X 100=%Of agreement or IOA.Agreernents+Disagreements

When both coding sheets shOwed the target behavior as oc― ing du五ng the

25

intenal, agreement was recorded. Whm the behavior recorded during the same

interval did not concur for both coding sheets, it was detemdned to be in

disagreement.

Treatment of Subiects

All zubjects involved in this investigation were videotaped three times while

teadrtng their regularly scheduled classes. The zubirts were divided into trro

groups-those who had received conventional supervisory feedback as part of

O'Brien's (1985) shrdy (control group) and those who had received systeuratic

supervisory feedback as part of O'Brien's Bhrdy (treaunent group). All three

videoapes were used for data analysis.

Each subject received instructions on how to fill out the TQSA before his or her

first teaching uperience and received additional information whitre fitling out post-

class estimates immediately following the videotaped class. The Erestionnaire was

filled out prior to and immedtately following the subiect's teadring of each class.

Proceduro

Each subiect was videotaped three tlmes while teadring his or her regutarly

scheduled classes. During the videotaping each subiect wore a wireless microphone.

The length of each teaching eession was approximately CI min. The activity taught

and type of teaching style were the teachet's choice.

Each subject was aslced to fill out the TQSA prior to and following the teadring

of each class. Detailed irutructioru were given to all subiects on the content of the

questionnaire.

The subjects were divided into two groups-those who received conventional

supenisory feedback as part of O'Brien's sttrdy and thooe who received systematic

feedbadk as Part of OtB五 en's study.

Methods of Data Couection

The宙deotapes made on each subject served as data fOr the analysis.The

videotapes were coded by an expert coder using the ALT‐ PE instrument.The TQSA

was completed by each subiect befOre the teaching session and again a■ er the class.

Only the post‐ class estiIIntes were used for analysls.

Data collected from the coding of ALT―PE were hand― scored and tra“ Posed into

PerCentages for the 21 vaHables identified by the ALT― PE insmment. Percentages

were also tabulated for the questiolじ on the TQSA.

Treat=lent of Data

Two steps were taken to lneet the assumption of independence of variables to

be analyzed by MANOVA. First′ seven selected variables were ehminated′ five from

the context level and two from the leamer involvement level. The decision to

eliminate a variable was based on its interest to the researcher′ its importance to the

quesuOn′ and the amount of recorded data it PЮ duCed.Accordingly′ ive va五 ables′

social behavioL breat rules′ fitness′ and background′ were ehminated from the

context level. Two variables′ interlm and】notor supportive Were elilninated from

the leamer involvement level. To dete...line the relatiorlship between the

perceived percentages recorded on the TQSA and the observed percentages recorded

through ALT― PE′ canonical correlations were perfo...led On the six varlables from

the context level(transition/managemenし wa.・・luP′ techniqu6 strategy′ practicQ

scrimmage/game)and On the six va五 ables from the learner involvement level

(waiting′ off―tast On― tast cognitivQ motor appropriate′ and motor inappropriate)

28

for both the treatment and control groups.

Pearson correlation was the second step taken to meet the assumption of

independence of variables to be analyzed by MANOVA. To check for

multicollinearity, Pearson correlations were computed on all variables to determine

the degree of relationship or association between any two variables. No statistical

test of the differences between correlations was applied because the correlations were

so obviously different that for practical purpose there was a clear difference between

the treatment and the control groups.

MANOVA was performed to determine whether differences in the students'

behaviors, as identified by ALT-PE, existed between the treatment and the control

groups. The percent that each variable contributed to the significant difference was

calculated using discriminant function analysis. An univariate analysis of variance

(ANOVA) was then used to identify which of the ALT-PE variables independently

contributed to the significant differences between the two groups. For all tests the .05

Ievel of significance was set prior to the data collection.

Summary

Twenty-six physical education student teachers who were divided into two

groups-those who had received conventional supervisory feedback as part of

O'Brien's study and those who had received systematic supervisory feedback as part

of O'Brien's study. All subjects filled out the TQSA prior to and immediately

following the teaching of each class. Only the post-c1ass estimates were used for

analysis and served as data for the perceived behaviors. Each subject was videotaped

three times while teaching his or her regularly scheduled classes. All the videotapes

served as data for the analysis. The observed teaching behaviors were coded by an

29

expert coder using ALT-PE. The data collected were hand-scored and transposed into

percentages.

Two steps were taken to meet the assumption of independence of variables to

be analyzed by MANOVA. First, seven selected variables were eliminated, five from

the context level and two from the learner involvement level. Canonical

correlations were used to determine the relationship between perceived percentages

from the TQSA and observed percentages recorded through ALT-PE for both the

treatment and control groups. Pearson correlation was the second step taken to meet

the assumption of independence of variables to be analyzdby MANOVA. To check

for multicollinearity, Pearson corelations were computed on all variables to

determine the degree of relationship or association between any two variables.

MANOVA was performed to determine significant differences in the students'

behaviors between the treatment and the control group. Then, a discriminant

function analysis was utilized to determine the percent that each variable

contributed to the significant difference. ANOVA was then executed to identify

which of the ALT-PE variables, when independently considered, contributed

significantly to any difference between the groups.

Chapter 4

ANALYSE OF DATA

The lasting effects of instruction in and supervision through ALT-PE on the

relationship between the perceived and the observed behaviors of students in classes

taught by physical education student teachers were studied. The subjects were 26

physical education student teachers enrolled at Ithaca College, lthaca, New York.

This chapter presents the results of the statistical analysis of the data in the following

four sections: (a) IOA, (b) relationship between perceived and observed students'

behaviors, (c) differences in students'behaviors, and (d) summary.

IOA

IOA scores were computed using the scored-interval method (Hawkins &

Dotson, 197r. Four randomly selected videotapes, two from the control group and

two from the treatment group, were coded during two independent coding sessions

by Dr. Victor H. Mancini, an expert in descriptiveanalytic studies. To determine

reliability for each of the categories of the ALT-PE recording instrument, the number

of agreements was divided by agreements plus disagreements and multiplied by 100

(Herson & Barlow, 1970. IOA scores ranged from93Vo to'l00Vo which were sufficient

to indicate the coder was reliable.

Relationship Between Perceived and Observed Students' Behaviors

In order to assess the relationship between the variables from the TQ$A and

the corresponding ALT-PE percentages for both the treatment group and the control

grouP, the canonical correlation technique Was used. The canonical correlation

technique was chosen since it is a multivariate type of comparison, and each

30

31

question had multiple responses. However, because the variables involved were

linearly dependent, the researcher was unable to execrrte the MANOVA procedure

for canonical correlations. Two steps were taken to meet the assumption of

independence of variables to be analyzd,by MANOVA. First, seven selected

variables were eliminated, five from the context level and two from the learner

involvement level. The decision to eliminate a variable was based on its interest to

the researcher, its importance to the question, and the amount of recorded data it

produced. Accordingly, the variables social behavior, break rules, fitness, and

background were eliminated from the context level. The variables interim and

motor supportive were eliminated from the learner involvement level. The results

for the treatment group showed four variables had significant correlations at the

context level, and four variables had significant correlations at the learner

involvement level. However, the control group showed no significant correlatioru

at the context level, and only one variable had a significant comelation at the learner

involvement level. The results are shown on Table 1 and Table 2.

Pearson corelation was the second step taken to meet the assumption of


multicollinearity, Pearson correlations were computed on all variables to determine

the degree of relationship or association between any two variables. For the

treatment group, the shared variance between the perceived and the observed scores

at the context level ranged from 87.57% (scrimmage/game) to 98.27Vo (practice). For

the control group, the amount of variance share by the perceived and observed

scores at the context level ranged from .08% (strategy) b 4A.83Vo (practice) (see Table

3). At the learner involvement level, for the treatment group, shared variance

32

Table 1

Analysis of Canonical Correlations on the Relationship Between Perceived and

Observed Students' Behaviors at the Context Level

Variables Eigenvalue Canonical

Correlation

df for MANOVAa

G)

Treatment Group h= 13)

1

2

3

4

5

6

477.28

314.97

24.62

8。 14

1.57

0.∞

1.00・

1.00・

.98■

.94■

.78

.04

6

5

4

3

2

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

6。98

2.97

0。89

0.29

0.14

0.01

Control Group (n = 13)

.94

.87

.69

.48

.35

。11

6

5

4

3

2

1

(tabte continues)

―|

33

Noteo Critical values of distribution of greatest characteristic root(gcru are

detemined from▲』厘堕ler Of multivanate statis重笙′Crable A5′ PP.300-309)by

R.J.HariS′ 1975′ New York Academic hess.

adffor an amほ lySes: m=n=-1/2.

っく.05。

34

Table 2

Analysis of Canonical Correlations on the Relationship Between Perceived and

Observed Students' Behaviors at the Learner Involvement Level

Variables Eigenvalue Canonical

Correlation

dffor MANOVAa

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

50998.15

40。 39

20。91

16.12

2.55

20

Treatment Group (n = 13)

1.00・

1.00・

.98■

.97■

.85

.41

6

5

4

3

2

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

105.87

11.28

3.86

1.84


1.00・

.96

.89

.81

6

5

4

3

2

1

７

　

１

０

　

０

２５

　

０９

(table continues)

35

Note. Critical values of distribution of greatest characteristic root (gcr) are

determined from A primer of multivariate statistics. (Table A5, pp. 300-309) by

R. ]. Harris ,7975, New York Academic Press.

t41for all analyses: m = n= -1/2.

? < .05.

36

Table 3

Correlation Coefficients for Perceived Versus Observed Scores at the Context Level

Variables Correlation

Coefficients

Shared

Variance (7o)

Transition / Mana gement

Warm Up

Technique

Strategy

Practice

Scrimmage/Game'

Treatment Group h= 13)

.97

.97

。98

.94

.99

.94

93.95

93.72

95。65

88.53

98.27

87.57

Transition / Management

Warm Up

Technique

Strategy

Practice

Scrimmage/Game


.05

。13

■8

.03

.64

.46

.28

1.77

1.63

.08

4[() .83

2122

Noteo Some numbers may not appear to be the exactsquare due tO rounding。

37

rangd from 9.53Vo (motor inappropria te) to g7.g77o (on-task). For the control group,

the amount of shared variance ranged from 3.777o (cognitive) to ?3.50Vo (waiting)

(see Table 4).

No statistical test of the differences between corelations was applied because

the correlations were so obviously different that for practical purpose there was a

clear difference between the treatment and the control group. Therefore, the

hypothesis that there were would be no significant differences in the observed

teaching behaviors between the physical education student teachers who received

instruction in and supervision through ALT-PE and those that did not receive

instruction in and supervision through ALT-PE was rejected.

Differences in Students' Behavior

MANOVA was performed on 13 variables identi.fied through the use of ALT-PE,

six variables from learner involvement level and seven variables from context

level. In Table 5, the cell means for the treatment and control groups on the 13

variables are presented. The MANOVA procedure resulted in a value of F(7,78) =

8.04, for the context level, and a value of F(6,19) ='!7.92, for the learner involvement

level, which were both significant at the .05 level of significance. The findings of this

significant between-group difference led to the rejection of the second hypothesis

that there would be no significant difference between the accrued ALT-PE of students

engaged in classes taught by physical education student teachers who received

instruction in and supervision through ALT-PE and those who did not receive

instruction in and supervision through ALT-PE.

The discriminant function analysis identified the percentage of contribution to

the between-group difference for each of the seven context level variables and each

38

Table 4

Correlation Coefficients for Perceived Versus Observed Scores at the Learner

Involvement Level

Va五ables Correlation

Coefficients

Shared

Variance (%)

Waiting

Off-Task

On-Task

Cognitive

Motor Appropriate

Motor Inappropriate

Treatment Group (n = 13)

.95

.91

.96

.91

.95

。31

89.74

83.03

91.97

82.99

89.93

9。53

Waiting

Off-Task

On-Task

Cognitive

Motor Appropriate

Motor Inappropriate


.48

.20

24

.18

.30

.46

23.50

4.01

5.84

3.17

8.83

21.17

Note. Some numbers lnay not appear to be the exact square due to rounding.

39

Table 5

Cell Meatt for the ALT― PE Variables

Vanables Treatment Group M Control Group M


Warm Up

Technique

Strategy

Background

Practice

Scrimmage/Game

Context Level

14.19

4。49

12つ

2.29

0.83

30.26

29。 22

19.88

9.53

12.19

2.33

0。 63

23.21

29.25

Waiting

Off-Task

On-Task

Cognitive

Motor Appropriate

Motor Inappropriate

Leamer lnvolvement Level

6.93

2.65

8.38

lZ70

37.44

16.10

14.86

6.32

1764

19。20

21.81

18.35

N

of the six learner involvement variables. These results are shown in Table 6. At the

context level, strategy accounted for 46.5OVo of the between-group variance. This was

followed by warm up (78.40Vo), transition/management (5.20Vo), background (3.03Vo),

scrimmage /game (0.00Vo), and technique (0.007o). At the learner involvement level,

on-task accounted for 2.56Vo of the variance. This was followed by waiting (2.16Vo),

motor inappropriate (7.70Vo), off-task (0.76Vo), motor appropriate (0.527o), and

cognitive (0.47Vo).

The univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the seven variables from the

context level and the six from the learner involvement level is presented in Table 7.

The ANOVA identified the variables that contributed to the significant between-

group difference. At the context level, transition/management and warrn up were

the only two variables that independently contributed to the significant between-

group difference. At the learner involvement level four variables independently

contributed to the significant between-group difference. These four variables were

waiting, off-task, on-task, and motor appropriate to the significant between-group

difference.

Table 5 shows the difference in the mean percentage of occurrence for each of

the 13 ALT-PE variables. At the context level, the students in the treatment group

teachers' classes had more time in technique, strategy, and scrimmage/game than

the students in the control group teachers' classes. At the learner involvement

level, the students in the treatment group teachers' dasses had more motor

appropriate behavior and had less waiting time, off-task behavior, on-task behavior,

cognitive behavior, and motor inappropriate behavior than the students in the

classes taught by teachers in the control group.

41

Table 5

Discriminant Function Analysis

Variables Canonical

Coefficients

Percent of

Contributions


Warm Up

Technique

Strategy

Background

Practice

Scrimmage/Game

Context Level

-.?3

_.43

.m

-.68

.77

-.02

-.01

5.20

18.,10

0.m

46.fl

3.03

0.03

0.00

Waiting

Off-Task

On-Task

Cognitive

Motor Appropriate

Motor Inappropriate

Learner Involvement Level

.15

.09

.'16

.06

-'07

.11

2.76

0.76

2.56

0.41

0.52

7.17

42

TableT

Univariate Analvsis of Variance ContrastintTreatment and Control Groups

Variables MS Among MS Within Fa


Warm Up

Technique

Strategy

Background

Practice

Scrimmage/Game

Context Level

210。62

165.00

2.34

0.01

0。26

323.42

0.01

31.18

9.35

31.71

4.55

1.05

168.50

214.40

6。 75・

17.65■

0.07

0。∞

0。25

1.92

0。∞

Waiting

Off-Task

On-Task

Cognitive

Motor Appropriate

Motor Inappropriate

Learner lnvolvement

408.84

87.52

557.55

14.48

2020.49

32.79

Level

34.“

Z59

18.71

32.85

30.76

10.74

11.82・

11.53・

29.80■

0.44

65.69・

3.05

adf = (7,24) for all tests.

? <.05.

43

Summary

IOA was established by the scored-interval method using four randomly

selected class sessions videotapes which were coded at two different viewings. IOA

ranged from 93Vo to "1.00Vo.

The canonical correlation technique was perfornred for the multivariate

comparisons on the variables from the TQSA and their related ALT-PE categories to

determine the relationship between the perceived and the observed teaching

behaviors in both groups. In order to meet the assumption of independence of

variables it was necessary to eliminate seven selected variables, five from the context

level and two from the learner involvement level. The treatment group showed

significant canonical correlations for four variables at the context level and four

variables at the learner involvement level. In the control group no significant

canonical correlations were found at the context level, and only one variable showed

significant canonical correlations at the learner involvement level. No statistical

test of the differences between correlations was applied because the correlations were

so obviously different that for practical purposes there was a clear difference between

the treatment and control groups. Therefore, the hypothesis that no significant

differences in the observed teaching behaviors between the physical education

student teachers who received instruction in and supervision through ALT-PE and

those that did not receive instruction in and supervision through ALT- PE was

rejected.

MANOVA was used to determine whether significant differences existed in the

students'behavior between the treatment and control group. The MANOVA

procedure resulted in a F(218) = 8.04, for the context level, and F(5,19) = 72.92, for the

M

learner involvement level which were both significant at the .05 level of

significance. This led to the rejection of the second hypothesis that there would be

no significant difference between the accmed ALT-PE of students engaged in classes

taught by physical education student teachers who received instmction in and

supervision through ALT-PE and those who did not receive instruction in and

supervision through ALT-PE. Discriminant function analysis identified the percent

of contribution to the between-group difference for each of the ALT-PE variables. At

the context level, strategy accounted for the greatest amount of variance, 46.50Vo. At

the learner involvement level, on-task behavior accounted for 2.55Vo of the

variance.

The ANOVA identified the variables that independently contributed to the

significant between-group difference. At the context level, transition/management

and warm up were the only two variables that independently contributed to the

significant between-group difference. At the learner involvement level, waiting, off-

task, on-task, and motor appropriate behavior all contributed to the significant

between-group difference.

|

Chapter 5

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The purpose of this investigation was to study the lasting effects of instruction

in and supervision through ALT-PE on the relationship between perceived and

observed students'behaviors in dasses taught by physical education student

teachers. The TQSA was used to measure teachers' perceptions of the dass events.

The ALT-PE instrument was used to measure the actual students'behaviors.

The analysis of data revealed that physical education student teachers

instructed in and supervised through ALT-PE were significantly more accurate in

estimating observed students behaviors than those student teachers who only

received conventional feedback. This increased awareness allowed teachers to make

the necessary changes to increase the ALT-PE of their students, thus becoming more

effective teachers. Therefore, this data support the inclusion of ALT-PE instruction

and supervision in the undergraduate teacher training curriculum.

This chapter discusses the results of this investigation and compares them with

the results of previous studies. The chapter has been divided into five sections. The

first section compares and contrasts the results of this investigation with earlier

studies on the relationship between perceived and observed students' behaviors.

The second section compares the results of this study with those of earlier studies

using systematic supervisory feedback. The third section compares the results of this

study with other studies involving ALT-PE. The fourth section compares the results

of this study with other follow-up studies. The fifth section presents a summary of

the discussion.

45

46

Re[ationship Between Perceived and

Observed Teaching Behaviors

Martin and Keller (7970 stated that teachers are unaware of their behaviors in

the class. Withall (7972) found that 857o of the teachers she investigated had little

awareness of their behaviors or what effect it had on their students. This past

research indicates that awareness of the class events is a problem to many teachers.

This investigation also supports the belief that teachers are unaware of the class

events. The canonical correlation technique was used to assess the relationship

between variables from the TQSA and their related ALT-PE percentages. The

treatment group showed four variables had significant correlations at the context

level ( transition/management, warm up, technique, and strategy) and four variables

(waiting, off-task, on-task, and cognitive) had significant correlations at the learner

involvement. However, the control group showed no significant correlations at the

context level, and only one variable (waiting) had a significant correlation at the

learner involvement level. Correlation coefficients were computed to determine

the amount of shared variance by the perceived versus the observed scores. In the

control group, the shared variance ranged from 0.087o b 4a.83vo, and in the

treatment group, the shared variance ranged from 9.53Vo to 98.27Vo. This suggests

that the subjects who did not receive instruction in and supervision through ALT-

PE were not aware of their students' behaviors. The student teachers in the

treatment group, who had received systematic supervisory feedback, were more

aware of their behaviors and those of their students.

Many studies have been done using systematic supervisory feedback to help

teachers improve. Similarities and differences between this study and other shrdies

47

using systernatic supervisory feedback will be examined.

Batchelder (1970 developed the TQO from the CAIIL{S categories to measure

teachers' perceptions of their behaviors. Twenty-five elementary teachers who

taught English, math, and physical education were observed. After comparing the

TQO to the observed teachers' classroom behaviors as recorded by CAFIAS, she

found only one of the 17 objectives that were observed to be significantly correlated

(pupil initiation, teacher-suggested ratio). The relationship between perceived

teaching behavior and observed teaching behavior of 15 school health educators was

investigated by Scriber (1977). In this study, CAFIAS and a modified version of the

TQO were used to collect data. Similar to Batchelder's findings, he found that only 4

of the 20 variables were significantly related.

Beam (798D investigated 33 science teachers' disptayed, perceived, and ideal

teaching behaviors to determine the effects of training in interaction analysis. The

data revealed that the teachers who had received videotape feedback plus interaction

analysis training became more aware of their classroom behaviors. Van der Mars et

al. (1981) used the TQO and CAFIAS to examine the effects of instruction in and

supervision through interaction analysis on the relationship between perceived and

observed teaching behaviors of 36 pre.service physical educators. The researchers

found that the subjects who received the systematic supervisory feedback using

CAFIAS and who were shown a comparison of their perceived to their observed

CAFIAS scores were able to make more accurate estimates of their observed scores.

O'Brien (1985) also used pre-service physical education teachers to investigate the

effects of instruction in and supervision through ALT-PE on the relationship

between perceived and observed teaching behaviors. From the findings it was

48

concludd that the subjects who received the systematic supervisory feedback using

ALT-PE and who were shown a comparison of their post-class estimates from the

TQSA and the observed scores were significantly more accurate in estimating

observed student's behaviors than those subjects who only received conventional

feedbadc

In this investigation, the canonical correlation technique showed that the

variables in the context level and learner involvement level, for the treatment

group, were significantly correlated. This indicates that the subjects who had

received the ALT-PE feedback during O'Brien's (1985) study were still better able to

predict their behaviors and their students'behaviors than those subjects who did not

receive ALT-PE feedback. This study and that of Beam (7972), van der Mars et al.

(1981), and O'Brien (1985) supports the belief that teachers who receive systematic

supervisory feedback and are shown comparisons of their perceived to observed

behaviors are better able to predict their class behaviors than those without such

objective feedback

Many educators have inaccurate perceptions of what is occurring in their

classrooms. Bondi (7970) stated how aware the teachers are of their own behaviors

and that of their students has been assumed to be related to the teacher effectiveness.

Teachers who are aware of their behaviors are able to correct negative behaviors or

maintain positive behaviors which enhance the learning process for their students.

In order to improve teachers' effectiveness, it is necessary to provide teachers with

systematic supervisory feedback to increase their awareness of the behaviors of

themselves and their students. The data from this study also supported that the

treatment group students accrued more ALT-PE and learned more because their

49

teachers were more effective than the control group teachers.

Systematic Supervisory Feedback Studies

In the past, most studies have used FIAS and its modifications to gather data to

provide systematic supervisory feedback. Therefore, direct comparisons of the

present study which used the ALT-PE instrument to these studies is not possible, but

similarities to other studies can be discussed.

Hendrickson (1975) and Rochester (7975) both used CAFL{S as the training

instrument for pre-service physical education teachers during micro-peer teaching

lessons. Hendrickson found that the subjects who received instruction in and

feedback from CAFIAS asked more questions, accepted and praised students'ideas

more, were more student-oriented, and were more indirect in their teaching than

those subjects who did not receive instruction and feedback in CAFIAS. Rochester

found that the teachers trained in CAFIAS had less teacher talk, more verbal

questioning by the teacher, and more student-initiated behavior occurring in their

classes than those teachers who were not supervised using CAFIAS.

Getty 09n),Inturrisi (1979), and Vogel (7970 also used CAFIAS as their

observation instrument and feedback tool. Like the present study, the investigators

used physical education student teachers as their subjects. Their results supported

the findings of Hendrickson (1975) and Rochester (1976). These researchers found

that CAFIAS feedback was effective in bringing about desired changes in the

teachers' behavior. In this study, MANOVA, followed by a discriminant function

analysis, and ANOVA were performed on the seven variables at the context level

and on the six variables at the learner involvement level. The results of these

analyses indicated the groups were significantly different. These analyses indicated

50

that the teachers who received instmction in and supervision through ALT-PE

designed their instruction to allow their students to accrue more ALT-PE than those

students whose teachers did not receive the ALT-PE feedback. These findings were

similar to O'Brien (1985) who used the same group of subjects when they were pre.

service physical education students; these teachers instmcted in a micro.peer setting.

O'Brien found that pre-service physical educators instructed in and supervised

through ALT-PE were significantly more accurate in estimating their students'

behaviors and had students who accrued more ALT-PE than those students in the

classes whose teachers only received conventional feedback. The findings of this

study and those of Getty (7977), Hendrickson (7975),Inturrisi (797il, Rochester (1976),

Vogel (7970, and O'Brien (1985) support the idea that systematic supervisory

feedback can produce desired changes in both the students'behaviors and the

teachers' behaviors.

ALT-PE Studies

The effects of different interventions and forms of feedback on students' ALT-

PE were studied by a number of researchers. Whaley (1980) used daily feedback in an

attempt to increase the engaged time and motor responses of his students. Whaley's

findings indicated that the treatment had no significant effect on the ALT-PE of the

students. However, the results of this study were different. These results indicated

that the ALT-PE feedback produced a significant difference in the ALT-PE of the

students in the classes taught by teachers who received the ALT-PE feedback. The

effects of instruction and supervision through ALT-PE were still maintained up to 1

year following the cessation of training.

Birdwell (1980) examined the effects of intervention and daily feedback given to

51

three in-service teachers on the ALT-PE of their students. Results showed ALT-PE

increased from il.7Vo to 57.3Vo and ALT-PE(M) from 77.5Vo to 37.7Vo. These increases

are similar to the results obtained from Paese's (1982) study. Teachers who were

given verbal and written feedback and strategies on how to reduce management

time were able to increase their students'motor engaged time and their ALT-PE(M).

Metzler (1981) assessed the value of intervention strategies to increase ALT-PE.

He found that a simple intervention of moving archery targets further apart (thus,

allowing two students to shoot at the same time) increased motor engaged

percentages trom'1.5.4Vo to 35Vo and ALT-PE(M) from 7'l..8Vo to 29.5Vo. Hart (1983)

examined the effects of short instructional clinics and daily systematic feedback given

to teachers on their students' ALT-PE. The data revealed that the intervention

resulted in reducing student wait time and transition time and increasing the ALT-

PE of the students in three out of the four schools.

This investigation also found differences in students'ALT-PE. At the context

level, the treatment group students had more time in subject matter motor, 59.48Vo

compared to 52.46Vo in the control group classes. Students taught by teachers in the

treatment group accrued more ALT-PE than students taught by teachers in the

control group, 37.MVo versus 27.87Vo. The students in the treatment group had less

waiting time than the students in the control group teachers'classes. The

discriminant function analysis revealed that strategy contributed to the greatest

amount of the between-group difference at the context level, and that on-task

behavior contributed to the greatest between-group difference at the learner

involvement level. Therefore, this indicates that the treatment group teachers were

more effective teachers because they allowed their students more ALT-PE.

The findings of this present study and the findings of Birdwell(1980), Hart

(1983), and Paese (o982) all support the contention that interventions and ALT-PE

feedback can produce higher engaged time for the students and reduce waiting time.

This shows that the ALT-PE instrument is a valuable supervisory tool in helping

teachers improve instructional performance and increase their students'

achievement. Therefore, it seems evident that ALT-PE training and feedback should

be included in teacher training programs. The indusion of ALT-PE training and

feedback in undergraduate teacher programs may produce more effective teachers in

the future. However, the question to be asked ig are these results long lasting?

Follow-up Studies

Getty 09n) investigated the effects of CAFIAS training and feedback on student

teachers. The subjects trained in CAFIAS were more indirect in their teaching style,

used more praise, permitted more verbal and nonverbal student initiated behaviors,

and made better use of questions. In Getty's study, the differences that were observed

in the students'behavior following training were still present 1 month after training

had ended. As a follow-up study to Getty 09n), Mancini et al. (1979) used the TPCQ

on the same set of subjects in order to determine the lasting effects of instruction and

supervision in CAFIAS on teacher effectiveness. They found that the treatment

group scored higher on the TPCQ and were more effective. They also concluded that

teacher effectiveness could be maintained 1 month after the training had ended.

Mancini et al. (1982) investigated the effects of supervisory feedback using

CAFIAS up to 4 years post-training on 26 in-service teachers'behaviors, attitudes,

and effectiveness. The results revealed that the teachers trained in CAFIAS as

undergraduates used more questions, were more indirect in their teaching, and

53

acceptd and praised students more than those received who conventional

supervisory feedback. The teachers who had been trained in interaction analysis

were more effective and had a more positive attitude. The study showed that the

effects of interaction analysis training could be maintained 1 to 4 years after the

training period had ended.

Grecic et al. (1984) used the same set of subjects as Mancini et al. (1982) to

investigate the lasting effects of training in interaction analysis on the students'

ALT-PE during classes taught by in-service physical educators. The subjects trained

in interaction analysis as undergraduates were more efficient teachers and had

greater student involvement in their classes. The students in their classes had twice

as much ALT-PE as the control group students (40.1,70 compared to 2'l..3Vo).

O'Brien (1985) further investigated the effects of instmction and supervision

through ALT-PE by studying the relationship between the perceived teaching

behaviors and the observed teaching behaviors of 30 pre'service physical educators

involved in micro-peer teaching. It was concluded that pre-service physical

educators instructed in and supervised through ALT-PE were significantly more

accurate in estimating their students'behaviors. It was also found that pre.service

physical educators instructed in and supervised through ALT-PE had students who

accrued more ALT-PE than those students in the classes whose teachers only

received conventional feedback.

This study was undertaken as a follow-up study to O'Brien (1985) to determine

the lasting effects of instruction and supervision through ALT-PE on the

relationshiP between perceived and observed student behaviors in classes taught by

physical education student teachers. The results of this study show that the physical

一|

54

education student teachers who had been instructed in and supervised through

ALT-PE during O'Brien's study were more aware of their students'behaviors and

their students accrued more ALT-PE than those students whose teachers only

received conventional feedback. Therefore, this study concluded that the effects of

ALT-PE instmction and supervision were still maintained up to 1 year following the

cessation of training.

Summary

Physical education student teachers who received instruction and supervision

through ALT-PE showed a tendenry to perceive classroom behaviors significantly

more accurately than those teachers who did not receive the ALT-PE feedback.

Training in systematic observation and systematic supervisory feedback were

found to decrease the difference between perceived classroom behaviors and

observed classroom behaviors by Beam (7982), O'Brien (1985), and van der Mars et al.

(1981). The findings that teachers are unaware of their behaviors seem to coincide

with results from earlier studies (Batchelder, 7976; Martin & Keller, 7975; Sr;iber,

1977;Withall,7972). This lack of awareness can be addressed by providing teachers

with systematic supervisory feedback

MANOVA followed by discriminant function analysis and ANOVA resulted in

the findings of significant differences between the treatment and control group. The

mean percentages of each ALT-PE variable showed that the students in the treatment

group had more motor appropriate behavior (ALT-PE), practice and less waiting

time, off-task, and on-task behaviors than the students in the control group classes.

The findings of this present study and the findings of Birdwell (1980), Getty (797n,

Hart (1983), Hendrickson (1,975), Rochester (1975) and Vogel (1975) all support the

55

contention that physical educators who are provided with systematic supervisory

feedback are able to change their behaviors and their students' behaviors.

This present study was a follow-up study to O'Brien (1985) to determine the

lasting effects of instruction and supervision through ALT-PE on the relationship

between perceived and observed student behaviors in classes taught by physical

education student teachers. The teachers who received instruction in and

supervision through ALT-PE were significantly more accurate in estimating

observed students'behaviors and their students accrued more ALT-PE than those

teachers who only received conventional feedback. These findings were congruent

with O'Brien (1985), therefore indicating that the effects of instruction and

supervision through ALT-PE were still maintained up to 1 year following the

cessation of training. These results coincide with past studies by Getty (7977), Grecic

et al. (1984), and Mancini et al. (1982) that revealed that training in interaction

analysis had an immediate effect on the teachers'behaviors and that the effect was

still maintained up to 4 years following the cessation of training. Interaction analysis

has been demonstrated to be a valuable tool in the teacher training Program and in

modifying teachers' behaviors.

The results of this investigation supports the inclusion of ALT-PE instruction

and supervision in the undergraduate teacher training curriculum. Since the effects

of instruction and supervision in ALT-PE were long lasting, it appears that the use of

in-service ALT-PE feedback has the potential to assist pre-service teachers to be more

effective teachers.

Chapter 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR FURTHER STUDY

Summary

The lasting effects of instruction in and supervision through ALT-PE on

student teachers' behaviors, specifically their awareness of their behaviors and the

academic learning time they provide for their students in their classes, were studied.

The subjects were 25 physical education student teachers enrolled at Ithaca College,

Ithaca, New York. These subjects participated in a previous study by O'Brien (1985)

that assessed the effectiveness of two different types of supervisory feedback-

systematic and conventional feedback--on pre-service teachers'behaviors. This

investigation sought to determine if the effects of instruction and supervision

through ALT-PE would still be maintained up to 1 year following the cessation of

training. This follow-up investigation used ALT-PE as the testing instrument to

collect data on the observed students' behaviors. The TQSA (O'Brien, 1985) was used

to collect data on the perceived students'behaviors.

Each subject was videotaped teaching three 40 min physical education classes. The

tapes were coded using the revised ALT-PE instrument (Siedentop et al., 1982). Each

subject filled out the TQSA prior to and again immediately following each class. For

the analysis of the data all three videotapes of each subject were used, along with the

subject's post-class estimates of these classes.

Two steps were taken to meet the assumption of independence of variables to

be analyzed by MANOVA. First, seven selected variables were eliminated, five from

the context level and two from the learner involvement level. The decision to

56

57

eliminate a variable was based on its interest to the researcher, its importance to the

question, and the amount of recorded data it produced. Accordingly, five variables,

social behavior, break, ruIes, fitness, and background, were eliminated from the

context level. Two variables, interim and motor supportive, were eliminated from

the learner involvement level. The use of the canonical correlation technique for

the ALT-PE variables, multivariate in character, resulted in the findings of

significant canonical corelations for the treatment group for four variables in the

context level and four variables in the learner involvement level. The findings for

the control group showed no significant canonical correlations in the context level

and only one in the learner involvement level.

Pearson correlation was the second step taken to meet the assumption of


multicollinearity, Pearson correlations were computed on all variables to detennine

the degree of relationship or association between any two variables. Table 3 presents

the results of the significant correlations (p < .05) between variables at the context

Ievel. Table 4 presents the results of the significant correlations (p < .05) between

variables at the learner involvement level. No statistical test of the differences

between correlations was applied because the correlations were so obviously

different that for practical purpose there was a clear difference between the treatment

and control groups. Therefore, the hypothesis that no significant differences in the

observed teaching behaviors between the physical education student teachers who

received instruction in and supervision through ALT-PE and those that did not

receive instruction in and supervision through ALT-PE was rejected.

MANOVA was used to determine significant differences in the students'

58

behaviors between the treatment and control groups. The second hypothesis that

there would be no significant difference between the accrued ALT-PE of students

engaged in classes taught by physical education student teachers who received

instruction in and supervision through ALT-PE and those who did not receive

instruction in and supervision through ALT-PE was rejected at the .05 level of

significance. Dirriminant function analysis identified the percentages of

contribution of each individual variable to the between-group difference. At the

context level, the major contributors were strategy, warrn up, and

transition/management. The major contributors at the learner involvement level

were on-task, waiting, and motor inappropriate behavior. The ANOVA identified

the variables that contributed to the significant between group difference. At the

context level, transition/management and wann up were the only two variables

that independently contributed to the significant between-group difference. At the

learner involvement level, four variables independently contributed to the

significant between-group difference. These four variables were waiting, off-task, on-

task and motor appropriate behavior.

The findings for the treatment group related to the first hypothesis seem to

support findings in earlier studies by Beam (1972), van der Mars et at. (1981) and

O'Brien (1985) regarding the beneficial effects of instruction and supervision through

systematic supervisory techniques. The subjects who received instruction in and

supervision using systematic supervisory techniques tended to be significantly more

accurate in their estimates of their behaviors and those of their students than those

subjects who did not receive instruction and supervision through interaction

analysis and ALT-PE. The results of this investigation indicate that the effects of

59

instruction and supervision through ALT-PE were still maintained up to 1 year

following the cessation of training.

The findings related to the second hypothesis also coincide with earlier

researchers' findings (Birdwell, 1980; Getty, 7977; Hart, 1983; Hendrickson, 7975;

O'Brien, 1985; Rochster 7976; Quinn, 7982;Yogel,7976) about the effects of

supervisory feedback on students' ALT-PE. Interventions and systematic

supervisory feedback can have a positive influence on students'ALT-PE.

Conclusions

From the findings provided by this investigation the following conclusions

were drawn:

1. Physical education student teachers instructed in and supervised through

ALT-PE were significantly more accurate in estimating observed students'behaviors

than those physical education student teachers who only received conventional

feedback.

2. The effects of instruction and supervision through ALT-PE were still

maintained up to 1 year following the cessation of training.

3. Instruction and supervision through ALT-PE were found to be beneficial in

making physical education student teachers more aware of their students'behaviors.

4. Physical education student teachers who had been instructed in and

supervised through ALT-PE during O'Brien's study had students who accrued more

ALT-PE than those students whose teachers only received conventional feedback.

Recommendations for Further Study

The following recommendations are suggested for further study:

1. A study of the effects of instruction in and supervision through ALT-PE on

60

the relationship between perceived and observed students'behaviors using in-

seryice teachers.

2. A follow-up study using the same subjects to determine if the long-term

effects of instruction in and supervision through ALT-PE are maintained when they

become in-service physical education teachers.

Appendix A

INFORMED CONSENT FORM:

STUDENT TEACHER COPY

1. PurPose. Research is being conducted to investigate the lasting effects of

instruction and supervision in Academic Learning Time-Physical Education (ALT-

PE) on student teachers' behaviors, specifically their awareness of their behaviors

and the academic learning time they provide for the students in their classes. The

student teachers selected for inclusion in this investigation participated in a study

last year where they received either conventional supervisory feedback or

instruction and supervision in ALT-PE while viewing the videotapes of their micro-

peer teaching. In last year's study, prior to and following their teaching, each subject

completed the Teacher's Questionnaire on Students' Activities (TQSA). The results

of the investigation revealed that those pre-service teachers who had received

instruction and supervision in ALT-PE were significantly more aware of their

behaviors and provided their students with significantly more academic learning

time or ALT-PE compared to those teachers who only received conventional

supervisory feedback. This study is being conducted to detennine whether the effects

of systematic supervisory feedback on teachers'behaviors and interactions are long

lasting by videotaping the subjects 1 year after their training during their student

teaching experience. The videotapes will be coded using the revised ALT-PE

instrument. The student teachers will be asked to complete the TQSA prior to and

following their teaching.

Benefits. With the resulting information student teachers may hopefully become

more aware of their behaviors and enhance their students' academic learning time.

61

52

Secondly, the information gained from this study will help evaluate the efficacy of

providing pre'service teachers with systematic supervisory feedback, such as ALT-PE,

as part of their professional preparation program by studying the effects of such

feedback 1 year later during their student teaching experience.

L Method. As a subject you will be asked to participate in the following manner:

A. Permit the researcher, Carol Collinson, to videotape three of your classes.

Drring this time, the only thing you will be asked to do is to wear a small wireless

microphone.

B. Prior to and immediately following your teaching you will be asked to

complete the TQSA. Each videotape will later be coded using the revised ALT-PE

instrument.

3. Will this hurt? There are no apparent physical or psychological risks involved

in participating in this study. At no time will your norrnal actions as a teacher be

affected by the videotaping. The coding instrument which wiU be used is

nonevaluative. The instrument describes the amount of time students are engaged

in performing motor activities.

4. Need more information? If you wish to know more information about the

study, please feel free to contact Carol Collinson or Dr. Victor H. Mancini at274-3109

at Ithaca College.

5. Withdrawal from the study. Participation is voluntary, and your agreement to

participate does not prevent you from discontinuing your participation at any time.

6. Will the data be maintained in confidence? Yes, it is assured that the names

and schools in this study will be kept in the strictest confidence. Videotaping is

solely for the Purpose of this study and will be available only to the researchers,

63

Carol Collinson and Dr. Victor H. Mancini, and the student teacher involved.

When the study is completed, the tapes will be erased.

7. I have read the above and I understand its contents. I agree to participate in this

study.

Thank you.

SignatureCarol CollinsonGraduate Student

Dr. Victor H. ManciniAdvisor-Ithaca CollegeDate

Appendix B


STUDENT COPY

1. Purpose. Research is being conducted to determine the lasting effects of

supervisory feedback using the Academic Learning Time.Physical Education

instrument on shrdent teacher's behaviors, specificatly the awareness of their

behaviors and the academic learning time they provide for the students in their

classes.

Benefits. With the resulting information student teachers mai hopefully

become more aware of their behaviors and enhance their students' academic

learning time. Secondly, the information gained from this study will help evaluate

the efficary of providing pre.service teachers with systematic supervisory feedback,

such as ALT-PE, as part of their professional preparation program by studying the

effects of such feedback 1 year later during their student teaching experience.

2. Method. Student teachers will be videotaped teaching three classes. As a

student in the class, you will be asked to paficipate by allowing yourself to be

videotaped. Each videotape will be coded using the revised ALT-PE instrument.

3. WiII this hurt? There are no apparent physical or psychological risks involved

in participating in this study. At no time will your norrnal actions as a student be

affected by the videotaping. The coding instrument which will be used is

nonevaluative. The instrument describes the amount of time students spend

engaged in motor activities.


study or the results of the study, please feel free to contact Carol Collinson or Dr.

64

65

Victor H. Mancini at 27*31,09 at Ithaca College.

5. Withdrawal from the study. Participation is voluntarlr, and your agreement to

participate does not prevent you from discontinuing your participation at any time.

6. Will the data be maintained in confidence? Yes, it is assured that the namqs

and schools in this study will be kept in the strictet confidence. Videotaping is

solely for the purpose of this study and will be available only to the researchers,


When the study is completed, the tapes will be erased.

7. I have read and understand the contents of the above and agree to participate in

this study. I acknowledge that I am 18 years of age or older.

Thank you.

SignatureCarol CollinsonGraduate Student


Appendix C


PARENT OR GUARDIAN COPY

1. Purpose. The study in which your son/daughter is asked to participate focuses

on determining the lasting effects of supervisory feedback using the Academic

Learning Time'Physical Education (ALT-PE) instrument on student teachers'

behaviors, specifically on their students'academic learning time. The ALT-PE

instrument provides a means to systematically assess the opportunities teachers

provide their students to learn, specifically students' time'on-task.

Benefits. With the resulting information student teachers may hopefully

become more aware of their behaviors and enhance their students' academic

learning time. Secondly, the information gained from this study will help evaluate

the efficary of providing pre.service teachers with systematic supervisory feedback,

such as ALT-PE, as part of their professional preparation program by studying the

effects of such feedback 1 year later during their student teaching experience.

2. Method. Student teachers will be videotaped teaching three classes. Your

son/daughter, as a student in the class, will be asked to participate by atlowing

him/herself to be videotaped for these three classes. The videotaping will not

interfere with your son's or daughter's normal actions in class nor will they be asked

to wear any identifying markers. Iater, each videotape will be coded by a trained

observer using the ALT-PE instrument. This systematic observation instrument

permits the description of the academic learning time teachers provide the students

in their classes.

3. Will this hurt? There are no apparent physical or psychological risks involved

66

67

in participating in this study. The coding instrument beiog used in this

investigation is nonevaluative; it simply describes the students' activities.

Participation in this investigation is voluntary, and the parent's agreement to the

student's participation does not prevent him or her from rliscontinuing the

student's participation at any.time. If your son/daughter does not wish to participate

in this investigation, arrangements will be made with the physical educator to

provide your child with another comparable physical education opportunity. This

will be done by having the physical educator divide the class in half, with one half of

the class assigned to the physical educator and one half to the student teacher.

Students who do not wish to participate would inconspicrrously be included in the

half of the class working with the physical educator (this half of the class would also

include students who indicated their willingnes to participate).


study or the results of this study, please feel free to contact Carol Collinson or Dr.

Victor H. Mancini at 27*3709 at Ithaca College.

5. Withdrawal from the study. Participation in this study is voluntary. Your

agreement to allow your son/daughter to participate does not prevent you from

discontinuing his/her participation at any time. If this occurs, your son/daughter

will be provided with another comparable physical education opportunity by his/her

physical educator.

6. Will the data be maintained in confidence? Yes, it is assured that the names

and schools in this study will be kept in the strictest confidence. Videotaping is

solely for the purpose of this study and will be available only to the researchers,


68

When the study is completed, the taPes will be erased.

7. I have read the above inforrration about investigation and I understand its

contents. I agree to allow my son/daughter, to participate in this study. I

aclnowledge that I am 18 years of age or older. Please note that failure to return

signed informed consent form shall be taken to mean that consent is not given for

your child's participation in this investigation.

Thank you.

Signature of Parent or guardianCarol CollinsonGraduate Student


ヽ／１

′

‐

Append破 D ′

TEACHER:S QLIESHONNAIRE ON THE STUDENぽ S:ACTDTΠ ES

Name Class Date

DIRECrIONS.

For each of the fouowing questions′ estirrnte the percentage of class time for each

of the act市 ides listed(1.e.′ 15%′ 28%).Only give a percentage for those act市 ities you

are planning to use ortO have acmuy∝ curr.

For each of the following eight questio“ ′estirrlate the percentage of class tilne for

the specific activity desc五 bedo The total for the eight questions shoukl equa1 100%。

■lese eight quesuO郎 refer to the activities of the whole class.

For questions l and 2 the Before(3hss After Class

focus is on class time devoted Esumate Estimate

to the g£ュ旦菫型」巫≧」Eコ止』EE聾旦・

1. What percentage of class time

was devoted to lnanage五al

tasks′ such as selecting teams′

moving froln station tO station′

changing equiPment′ Or lnoving

out to the playing field?

| 2. What percentage of class time

was spent on warrn-up activities,

such as stretching, calistentics, or

routine exercises?

Questions 3-5 refer to class time when

69

70

Appendix D (continued)

Before Class

Estimate

After Class

Estimate

the pHmary fo― is on the knowle彙

壺」工J凶重£菫」幽=ル

nOt mOVement.

3。 What percentage of class time was

used for exPlanation of rules and

regulatiorls of the game or activity′

such as violatio“ ′sconng in

bowling or the specific rules in

basketban?

What percentage of chss tilne was

used for giving infonnation on

…

hおtOry′ rinab′ herOes′

or the importance of the activity

for later years′ such as tearn records

or fitness values?

What percentage of class time was

spent on demonstration or―

of how to execute a skill′ such as

watching a film′ listening to a speakeち

or listenlng to a lectte?


SPent On giving info...lation about the

71


…

Of the game or physical activity′

such as an exPlanatiOn of offelse and

defense or the progressions in a dance

or a gttnastic routine?

QueStiOrls 7-8 refer to the chss time

students are active取 inV01Ved or

…

in Skill practice′ scrmmage′

ora game.

7.What percentage of class time was

spent on controlled skill practice

such as circle drill in PaSSing a

volleyball′ dribbling around cones′

practidng skills on the balance bearn′

or pradiang a step in dance?

8。 What percentage of class time were

skilb」攣山墨 in a modined gamし

sc―mage′ or an entire game′ such

as a volleyball game′ a complete

balance beam routine′ a relay race′

100-yard dasL or a complete dance

routine?

Before Class

Estimate

After Class

Estimate

72

Total should eqgal 1007o TOTAL

For each of the following questions estimate the percentages of dass time each of the

situations occurred. The total for the seven questions should equal 100Vo. These

seven questions refer to the specific tyPe of individual student(s) involvement in the

class.

Questions 1 and 2 refer to the

percentages of time the students

were actively involved or

participated in skill practice,

scrimmage, or an entire game.

la. What percentage of class time

was the student actively involved

in a skill practice, a scrimmage,

or entire game ?

Of the percentage of time in

question 1a that the students

were actively involved, what

percentage of the time were they

successful? Example: Students

were actively involved 65Vo of

the time, and they were successful

42Vo of the time. Do not add this

percentage into the total percentage.

What percentage of class time

Before Class

Estimate

After Class

Estimate

lb.

73


Before Class

Estimate

After Class

Estimate

during the physical activity was

the student acting as an assistant

orin a suっ,orting Юle′ such as

SPOtting in〔ぅannaStiCs′ feeding

the balls to a hitter in tennis′ or

clapping to keep beat while others

are danclng?

QueStiOrls 3-7 refer to the percentage of

time the learners are not involved in

a motor activity or game.

3。 What percentage of class tilne was

the student not receivlng

info...lation but wait量コピfor the

next lllstructions or oPPortunity

to resPond′ Such as waiting in/for

the balance beanl′ waiting as a

substitute to play in a game′ or

waiting for lЩtther directiorLS?

4。 What percentage of class time was

the student recelvingLlnfo...lation

by lechlre or watching a

lTHACA COLLEGE llRPip、

74


Before Class

Estimate

After Class

Estimate

demonstration such as listening

to insmctiorls Or having a

di―sion?


the student off― task′ nOt Ca扁り′ing

out an assigned task or engaged

in an activity he/she should not

be in′ such as foohng around′

fighting′ disrupting a drill′ or

talking while the teacher was

talking?


the student involved in a non―

instructional task of an ongoing

activity′ such as retrieving balls′

Axing equipment′ or changing sides

of a court in volleybau?

What percentage of chss time was

the student ca=理里gttut an as製

taSt Such as

waニュ.lup activities′ moving out to

75


Before Class After Class

Estimate Estimate

the playing field, or moving into

squads?

Total should equal 100% TOTAL

REFERENCES

Aufderheide′ S.′ McKenzic T.′ &Knowles′ C.(1982).Effects of indi宙 dualized

insmctiOn On handicapped and nonhandicapped students in elementary school

PhySiCal educauon dasses.nmalofTeactt Ph〕 dCal Educau四 1(3)′ 51-57.

BatcheldeL Ao S。 (1976)。 PЮcess obiecuves and their implementauon in elementary

lnath′ English′ and PhysiCal education classes(Doctoral dissertation′ Boston

University′ 1975).Dissertadon Abstracts lnternauonal′ 地 7997A.

Beam′ K.J。 (1972).The effds of interaction analysis training and feedback on

aspects of science teacher classroom intentions′ perceptiorls′ and behavior

(Doctoral dissertation′ State University of New York at Buffalo′ 1972).

Dissertation Abstracts lnternational′ 23592A.

BerlineL D.C.(1978′ March).Changing academic leaming:Clinical intervention in

four classroolrls.Paper presented atthe meeting ofthe Ame五 can Educational

Research Association′ Toronto.

Berhner′ Do C。 (1979)。 Tempus educare.h Po Peterson&Ho Walberg(Eds。 )′ Research

on teachi]コニCOncttt邑“旦ndi]馴邸L and ittЦ21iCations(PP.120-135)。 Berkeley:

McCutchan.

Birdwell′ D。 (1980). The effects of rnodification of teacher behavior on the academic

learning time of selected students in PhySiCal education(Doctoral dissertation′

The Ohio State University′ 1980).Dissertation Abstracts lntemational,生 1472A.

Bondi′ J.C.(1970).Feedback from interaction analysis:Some imphcations for the

improvement of teaching。 ■le Toumal of Tea⊆ her Education′ 生 189-196.

CarrolL J.(1963).A model ofsch00Heaming.Teachers COllege Record′ 色 723-733.

76

77

Cheffers′ J.T.F。 (1983).Cheffers:Adaptation of the Fhnders'Interaction Analysis

System.In P.W.Darst′ V.Ho Mancini′ &D.B.Zakra卜ek CdS・ )′

…observation ins― enta●on for攣曇亜重墜辿璧型堕1(PP.76-95).West Point′ NY:

Lelsure Press.

Fisher′ Co W.′ BerlineL Do C.′ Filbル N.N.′ Marliavら R.′ CaheL Lo S.′ Dishaw′ M.M.′

&Moore′ Jo E。 (1978).Teachi聖饉nd leaming in the elementary schooL A

Teachers Evaluation Studv Technical Report Se五es). San Franclsco:Far West

Laboratory for Educational Research and Development′ 1978。 (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No.ED 165-322)

Flanders′ N.A。 (1960).Interac● on analttsitt in the dassroom:A manual for

observers.Minneapolis:College of EducauO■ university of Minnesota.

Gettル H・ L.(1977).Effects of insmctiΩ ュ旦nd旦理⊇ervisiΩュi]interactiΩn analysis on

.Unpublished masters thesis′ Ithaca

Collegし Ithaca′ NY.

Godbout′ P.′ Brunene′ Jり &TOusignant′ M。 (1983)。 Academic leaming time in

elementary and secondary physical education dasses.Research Ouarterlv′ 5生 11-

19.

Good′ T.L′ &Brophル Jo E。 (1973).Lookittin claSSroorrs.New York:Harper&

Row.

Grecic′ Jり Mandni′ V.H.′ &Wuest′ D。 (1984′ ApHl).lasting erects of supervision

興 lnteraction analvsis om in「 servife physi⊆ 塁l educators and their studentsi

academic learning tilne― phvsical education(ALT―PE). Paper presented at the

Arnerican Aniance for Health′ Physical Education′ Recreation′ and lDance

78

National Convention′ Anaheim′ CA.

Harris′ R.J。 (1975)。 A要重璽er Of mulivanate statisucs,New York:Academic Press.

Hart′ C.L.(1983).The effects of modification of teacher beha宙 or on the academic

leaming time of selected students in Physiml educauon(Doctoral disserta■ on′

ne ohio state University′ 1983).Dissertation Abstracts lntemational′ 笠

2710A.

Hawkins′ R.′ &Dotson′ V。 (1973)。 Reliabnity scores that delude:An Alice― in―

wonderhnd t五p through the rnisleading characteristics of interobserver

agreement scores in intewal recordingo ln Eo Ramp&G.Semb(Eds。)′ Behavior

(PP。 359-376).Englewood Chffs:

Prentice Hall.

Hend五ckson′ Co E。 (1975).The use of the Cheffers:Adaptation of Fhndersi

lnteraction Analvsis System ini墨 ⊇reiServi⊆ e training prOram Of physical

education teachers. UnPubliShed rrnster:s thesis′ Ithaca College′ Ithaca′ NY.

Herson′ M.′ &Ba■ ow′ D。 (1976)。 Single case experimental desims.New York:

Pergamon.

Inturrisi′ E。 (1979)。

on the attitudes and teachintt behavior of student teachers。 1」npublished

masteris thesis′ Ithaca Conege′ Ithaca′ NY.

Keilty′ Go C.(1975). The effect of irstruction and supervlsion in interaction analvsis

on the preparation of student teachers CDoctoral dissertauon′ Boston University′

1975)。 Disse■ation Abstracじ Intemadonal′ ェ 1371A.

KeneL J。 (1982). Modification of a h∝kev/201f ETU. Unpublished lnasteris thesis′

Virginia Polytechnic lstitute and State University′ Bhcksburg′ VA.

79

Love′ A.M.′ &Barn′′P・ (1971). The teacher education center in PhysiCal education.

19堅二塁ュL≦重」日墜狙二聾Lこヱ堕睾藝山⊆型LEdL巫望重豊塑ュι旦コピL玉壁≦=E旦

」塁=し

2 (4)′ 33-34.

Mancint V.H.′ Frye′ P.A.′ &Quinn′ P.A。 (1982).Long― te._l effects of insmctiOn

and supervision in interaction analysis on teacher behavior′ effectiveness′ and

attitudes of in―service physical educators.In M.PieЮn&Jo Cheffers(Eds。 )′

(pp.179-188).Liege′ Belgium:

Intemational Association for Physical Education in Higher Education.

Mancini′ V.H.′ MorHs′ H.H.′ &Getty′ H.L.(1979′ July).The effects of i“ truction

effectiveness of student teachers. Paper presented atthe World Congress

lntemational Conference of the lntemational Council for IIealth′ Physical

Education′ and Recreation(ICHPER)′ Kiel′ Federal Democratic Republic.

Mancini′ V.H.′ Wuest′ D.′ &van der Mars′ H。 (1984′ July).USe ofilЪ mction and

supervision in interaction analysis dttring ttndergraduate professional

…

・ Paper presented at the 01ソ mpic ttientific Congress′ Eugene′ OR.

Marliave′ R.(1976)。 A re宙ew ofthe indings of⊇ hase ⅡI(Technical note I-1).

Bttnlnttcher Evaluation S菫撃。San Franciscα Far West Lboratory for

Educational Research and Development.

Marliave′ R。 (1977).The development of instrumentauOn for a■ eld studv of

.San Francisco:Far West

Laboratory for Educational Research and Development.

Maniave′ R.(1979′ APHl)。 Academic leaming亘 Je ttnd achievemenL The

vahdation of a measure of ongoing studenLFngagement and task difficultv.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research

80

AssoclatiOn′ San Franclsco.

Maniav6 R.′ FbheL C.′ &Dishaw′ M。 (1972).Academic leaming time and student

.San

Francisco:Far West laboratory for Educational Research and lDevelopment.

Martin′ R。′&KeneL A.(1976)。 A teacher awareness of dassr00m dyadic

interactions. Toumal of Sthool Psvcholo2v′ lL 47-55。

McKe12iO T.′ Clark′ E.′ &McKer2ie′ R (1982′ APHl)。 113mctiOnal stvles:Innuence

on teacher behavior and student moto=

classes. Paper presented at the AmeHcan Aniance for Health′ Physical Education′

Recreation′ and Dance National Convention′ HOuston.

Metzler′ M.(1980a′ April).ALT―PE results from a de茎口匹ive Sh車・ Paper presented

atthe Ame五can Alliance for Health′ Physical Education′ Recreation′ and lDance

National Convention′ Detroit.

MetzleL M。 (1980b)。 The lneasurement of academic leanling time in PhySiCal

education.Dissertation Abstracts lnternational,425365A.(University

Microfilms No。 8009314)

Metzler′ M.(1981′ Ap五 1)。 ALT―PE(M)in college physical education classes.Paper

presented at the Ame五can Alhance for Health′ Physical Education′ Recreation′

and Dance National Convention′ Boston.

01Brie■ D.M。 (1985).The erects of instruction in and supervision through

perceived and observed studentsi behaviors. Unpublished masteris thesis′ Ithaca

College′ Ithaca′ NY.

Ortレ′F.J。 (1980′ April).Simificant insmctiOn feamres in bilinmal education.

81

Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Convention′

Boston.

Paese′ P。 (1982)。 The effects of feedback on academic leaming time(PE lnotor)in

student teachers'dasses.Tournal of.Teaching in Phvsical EducauOn′ 21)′ 29-37.

Placet J.′ SilVe...lan′ S。′Shute′ S.′ Doddtt P.′ &巡 .F。 (1982)。 Academic leaming

time(ALT― PE)in a traditional elelnentary physical education setting:A

desc五puve analySis.Toumal of Classroom lnteraction′ 望 (2)′ 41-47.

ミ .F.′ &Dodds′ P。 (1983).Introduction IMonO♂mph].

P!wSiCal EducatiQLL l-3.

Rife′ F.′ Shute′ S.′ &Dodds′ P。 (1985). ALT― PE Version l and Ⅱ:Evolution of a

student―centered observa■ on system in physical educauon.

in Phvsical Educauon′ ■ 139-142.

RochesteL D.A。 (1976).The effects of suDervLion and i“ mcuOn in the use of

interaction analvsis on the teacher beha宙 or of preservice teachers.Unpublished

masteris thesis′ Ithaca Couege′ Ithaca′ NY.

艶五ber′ K。 (1977).The relatiorLShip between perce市 ed teaching behavior and

observed teaching beha宙 or of school health educators.Unpublished masters

PЮjeCし State University of New York College at Cortland′ Cortland.

Shute′ S。′Dodds′ P.′ Placet J.′ Rife′ F.′

`=Silve...lan′

S。 (1982)。 Active leaming time

(ALT―PE)in elementary school lnOvement education:A descriptive analytic

study.Toumal of Teaching in Phvsical Education′ 12)′ 3-14.

Siedentop′ D。′Birdwen′ D。′&MetzleL M。 (1979′ March).AコEOceSS喫 ach tO ・

measuHng teacher er∝ t市eness in phvsical education.Paper presented at the

Research Symposium of the American Alliance for Health′ Physical EducatiOn′

82

and Recreation National Convention′ New Orleans.

SiedentoP′ D.′ Tousignant′ M.′ &Parker′ M。 (1982). (rev.

ed。 ).Columbus′ OH:/象■ool of Health′ Physical EducauOn′ and Recreation′ ■le

Ohio State University.

van der mrs′ H。 (1979)。

beha宙 or亜攣re―Servlce p曇堕lcal educauon teachers.Unpublished rrlasteris thesb′

Ithaca College′ Ithaca′ NY.

van der Mars′ H.′ Mancini′ V.H.′ &FryQ P.A.(1981).Eff∝ ts of interaction analysis

training on perceived and observed teaching behavior. ]burna1 0f Teachニコ勇in

gl)′ 57-65.

Vogel′ R.D.(1976).The effects of instruction and super宙 sion in Cheffers!

Adapta■ on of Πanders'Interaction Analvttis System On the teaching beha宙 or of

student teachers. 1」npublished lnasterts thesis′ Ithaca College′ Ithaca′ NY。

Whaley′ G。 (1980). The effects of daily monitoring and feodback to teachers and

students on acadenuc learning time‐PhysiCal educationo Dissertation Abstracts

lntema● onal′ 生 1477A.CUniversity Microfiltt No.80盟 365)

Withall′ J。 (1972)。 Research in systematic observation in the classroom and its

relevance to teachers. The lournal of Teacher Education.2旦′330-332.

Young′J。 (1981)。 The innuence of academic leaming time on the acquisi●on ofa

novel task.Unpublished masterゝ creat市e component′ Iowa State University′

Ames。

Documents

The lasting effects of instruction and supervision through